Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?
Thread Starter
I think this thread has just about run its course. I’m sure others would agree.
Here is an interesting point. The thread heading was intentionally provocative – i.e.
Since that announcement was made 2½ weeks ago, there have been 421 posts, and nearly 7,000 hits. On top of that, there must be thousands who saw the heading and didn’t actually look at the thread.
Imagine working for Airservices. If someone made an announcement like that in relation to my business, I would come out fighting if I thought they were wrong. I would issue a press release and make myself available to the media and the industry to explain why the ADS-B program was not going to be another Super Seasprite fiasco.
So what has happened? Well, as we know, there has not been a peep from the Airservices management – or possibly they have said something anonymously on this thread.
Remember, it is not as if the 6,900+ hits have come from ineffectual people. We all know that this site is read by politicians (on both sides of Parliament), the bureaucracy, influential people in the airlines, influential journalists, as well as many airline and GA pilots. People in the Department of Transport – or whatever it is called today – earnestly follow this site.
So could it be that the Airservices management believes that if they ignore the claim, it will simply go away? That is not a good way to manage your business and keep the reasonable staff morale.
I’m very happy to talk to anyone at Airservices (off the record if need be) and if I have made errors on this site I will correct them. The invitation is there.
Here is an interesting point. The thread heading was intentionally provocative – i.e.
Airservices Australia ADS-B program – another Super Seasprite fiasco?
Imagine working for Airservices. If someone made an announcement like that in relation to my business, I would come out fighting if I thought they were wrong. I would issue a press release and make myself available to the media and the industry to explain why the ADS-B program was not going to be another Super Seasprite fiasco.
So what has happened? Well, as we know, there has not been a peep from the Airservices management – or possibly they have said something anonymously on this thread.
Remember, it is not as if the 6,900+ hits have come from ineffectual people. We all know that this site is read by politicians (on both sides of Parliament), the bureaucracy, influential people in the airlines, influential journalists, as well as many airline and GA pilots. People in the Department of Transport – or whatever it is called today – earnestly follow this site.
So could it be that the Airservices management believes that if they ignore the claim, it will simply go away? That is not a good way to manage your business and keep the reasonable staff morale.
I’m very happy to talk to anyone at Airservices (off the record if need be) and if I have made errors on this site I will correct them. The invitation is there.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if I have made errors on this site I will correct them
James, I am baiting you and it is obviously working!
QUICK WEEKEND RECIPE NOW DICK IS THROWING IN THE TOWEL AS THE HARSH SPOTLIGHT OF TRUTH DAWNS
DICKMITE - ALMOST AS AUSSIE AS VEGEMITE
Well, it's as Aussie as NASi Goreng and coming soon to an ADS-B Store near you.
INGREDIENTS
Set thermostat to 1090.
Bring pprune pot to boil, then throw in two ears (unused).
Add a large scoop of rhetoric.
Dice several unreceived phone calls.
Try and cut an anon into agenda pieces (these must be well hidden in the mix for Dickmite to brown properly).
Sprinkle large shakes of conspiracy theory.
Shake in some conflict of interest or a dram of pecuniary interest for good measure.
Slice in one reverse gear (unused).
Keep adding innuendo if the mix is not to your liking.
Remove any subsidy before it can settle.
If the mix gets too hot, call for more fans and more air services.
Stir the lot, and if you don't like the result, suggest it has soured and become runitscourse instead of dickmite, and take your bat and ball and go home, singing 'the heat's too hot, I'm out of this kitchen'.
The ripper thing with this recipe is you don't really need an actual documented fact based recipe, you can make it up as you go each time and blame the manufacturer's for your lack of knowledge.
SERVING SUGGESTIONS
Success to date has been limited with only one person finding the result palatable.
Our suggestion is that the culinary result is best used as a suppository - a real 'in u end oh' - as our most recent reviews have certainly had that effect on us.
External reviewers of knowledge and renown have rejected the recipe as a waste of time as it has no value adding to consumption.
POETS DAY - BEER CALLS.
Could it be that no one in AirServices wants to even be seen with you, Mr Smith?
If there is one thing that history shows about you Mr Smith, it is that you do nothing that doesn't benefit you directly. Come clean, why the plan to get into favour with the Minister?
Why create this argument in the first place. Do you think Minister Albanese and his minders are impressed with the controversy you have concocted? Is this all part of the plan? Like showing how FS wasn't able to facilitate a transponder check in OCTA where there was no requirment nor facilities. FS would have happily helped you on that day without question. I wonder if those same people would have offered if they knew why you did it and what you had in plan for them.
Maybe I am reading too much into this, but I cannot but connect the dots between your actions whilst at AOPA, the scene at BN over having to walk over to FS to submit a plan. Your continuous complaints about defence airspace. Your complaints about ATC clearences in various places around the country. Your love affair with everything US. (TAAATS just didn't fit with you did it?) And there heaps more like RFF and Pubs and navcharges and BASI...
I have no intention of defamation. I just would realy like to know why you spend so much time with trying to change aviation? It is almost like a twenty five year game of chess. Why do it, what do you expect to get out of all this?
If there is one thing that history shows about you Mr Smith, it is that you do nothing that doesn't benefit you directly. Come clean, why the plan to get into favour with the Minister?
Why create this argument in the first place. Do you think Minister Albanese and his minders are impressed with the controversy you have concocted? Is this all part of the plan? Like showing how FS wasn't able to facilitate a transponder check in OCTA where there was no requirment nor facilities. FS would have happily helped you on that day without question. I wonder if those same people would have offered if they knew why you did it and what you had in plan for them.
Maybe I am reading too much into this, but I cannot but connect the dots between your actions whilst at AOPA, the scene at BN over having to walk over to FS to submit a plan. Your continuous complaints about defence airspace. Your complaints about ATC clearences in various places around the country. Your love affair with everything US. (TAAATS just didn't fit with you did it?) And there heaps more like RFF and Pubs and navcharges and BASI...
I have no intention of defamation. I just would realy like to know why you spend so much time with trying to change aviation? It is almost like a twenty five year game of chess. Why do it, what do you expect to get out of all this?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB,
Any chance of a reply to this
FB ,
I trust I'm not being thin-skinned, maybe I am, however you asked for a reference. What are you implying from your post of July 8th.
"I see you make mention that the system would revert to an inefficient, and non-dangerous state... a system, aparently, that has less ATC and nav-aids then we currently have... Hmmm..."
Apologies in advance if I have the wrong end of the stick
Any chance of a reply to this
FB ,
I trust I'm not being thin-skinned, maybe I am, however you asked for a reference. What are you implying from your post of July 8th.
"I see you make mention that the system would revert to an inefficient, and non-dangerous state... a system, aparently, that has less ATC and nav-aids then we currently have... Hmmm..."
Apologies in advance if I have the wrong end of the stick
james michael
My compliments to you for persevering with the debate here.
Many of us who did the same for many years with the same handful of parties have now given up.
Sooner or later (hopefully much later) you may come to the same conclusion we did: it’s just not worth the trouble trying to reason with some individuals.
My compliments to you for persevering with the debate here.
Many of us who did the same for many years with the same handful of parties have now given up.
Sooner or later (hopefully much later) you may come to the same conclusion we did: it’s just not worth the trouble trying to reason with some individuals.
Thread Starter
To everyone,I apologise if I have made improper comments about fellow posters-even those who post anonymously.
James, I loved the recipe -maybe we could try it when we go flying together.
OZ, the argument was created so we could get some healthy discussion and hopefully make the best decision on ADSB
I spend a lot of time on Aviation matters because it would give me great satisfaction if the industry became viable and Australia became a leader in flight training and General Aviation with lots more people employed.
And I don't have admiration for everything US. I just like copying the best from anywhere.
James, I loved the recipe -maybe we could try it when we go flying together.
OZ, the argument was created so we could get some healthy discussion and hopefully make the best decision on ADSB
I spend a lot of time on Aviation matters because it would give me great satisfaction if the industry became viable and Australia became a leader in flight training and General Aviation with lots more people employed.
And I don't have admiration for everything US. I just like copying the best from anywhere.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd have to agree with Captainmidnight. Most posters just give up. For example: Dick wrote a lengthy post about why towers not owning airpsace was better, and why the way they do it in the States is better. It sounds perfectly reasonable (to a non-ATC). No-one challenged him. The reason- asked and answered, over and over, many times.
It has been explained to Dick that whilst our system is 'different', it evolved that way out of efficiency. We just dont have the bodies that they do in the states. Their towers have their hands full just running those little bits of airspace and their multiple runways, even splitting down to individual controllers running 1 runway each. We just dont have the traffic levels to warrant the level of manning that allows the US system. Their tracon guys "own" tiny (by Australian standards) bits of airspace, and can run approaches into towers etc. The guy in oz in the same position is looking at a 400nm screen with 12 such airports in it, and doesnt have the resolution or capacity to do what Dick wants. I can see how these concepts are hard to appreciate if you are not a trained controller, but that is where Dick diverges from his own advice. He doesnt accept the advice of experts (the many who post here, either anonymously or using their own name!!), and he doesnt allow the best "bang for safety buck" (the way the oz system evolved is efficient for oz!).
Finally, another thread has shown Dick up with facts, and he descends into witch hunt and attacking motivations. Then he wonders why people wont call him!!!
Edited to say: I've just read Dick's apology above, so credit where it is due. It is certainly true that threads like this are highly educational- even if they dont turn out as certain people want! (this post was written at the same time as the one above).
It is a different system to the one that has operated here for the last 50 years – since before radar. However to me it seems to be far safer and more “professional.”
Finally, another thread has shown Dick up with facts, and he descends into witch hunt and attacking motivations. Then he wonders why people wont call him!!!
Edited to say: I've just read Dick's apology above, so credit where it is due. It is certainly true that threads like this are highly educational- even if they dont turn out as certain people want! (this post was written at the same time as the one above).
Thread Starter
Ferris, so that means we can't use the advantage of Radar at a place like Launceston even though it is located at the airport?
I why would our system be efficient when traffic densities are low and it has always been run by a monopoly?
I why would our system be efficient when traffic densities are low and it has always been run by a monopoly?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Launceston is a special case, as you would be aware.
The radar was quickly shipped down there as a temporary measure for political reasons, as a mitigator against dangers revealed when amateurs started playing with the tried and true.
I have no problem with tower controllers using radar, ADS-B or any other tool that would make the job easier*. In the case of LT tower though, you might want to get enough controllers there so that the place isnt closed half the time before you worry about what ratings they have.
*Note use of the word easier. In the same way you used the words "advantage of radar".
The oz system is efficient for oz airpsace. That has been shown to you on pprune before. Why you think you can continually ignore inconvenient truths is puzzling. Can it be done better? For sure. But the US way is not better (transplanting that system into oz), given oz conditions/traffic levels/surveillance capabilities/manning levels etc.
AsA is a monopoly in as much as the FAA is. It depends on how you look at these things. Is Sydney Airport a monopoly? Is Maq a monopoly after they tendered and won SY? IS SY 'efficient'. Lets not confuse "Ownership" with "Operator". Otherwise we might have to talk about the charging regime.
To me, this line says it all
What possible difference could traffic levels have on efficiency? AsA cant change the traffic levels in order to produce more 'efficiency'. You are efficient or not based on what you have- surely you can see that? You have a traffic level. You work that traffic efficiently or not.
The radar was quickly shipped down there as a temporary measure for political reasons, as a mitigator against dangers revealed when amateurs started playing with the tried and true.
I have no problem with tower controllers using radar, ADS-B or any other tool that would make the job easier*. In the case of LT tower though, you might want to get enough controllers there so that the place isnt closed half the time before you worry about what ratings they have.
*Note use of the word easier. In the same way you used the words "advantage of radar".
The oz system is efficient for oz airpsace. That has been shown to you on pprune before. Why you think you can continually ignore inconvenient truths is puzzling. Can it be done better? For sure. But the US way is not better (transplanting that system into oz), given oz conditions/traffic levels/surveillance capabilities/manning levels etc.
AsA is a monopoly in as much as the FAA is. It depends on how you look at these things. Is Sydney Airport a monopoly? Is Maq a monopoly after they tendered and won SY? IS SY 'efficient'. Lets not confuse "Ownership" with "Operator". Otherwise we might have to talk about the charging regime.
To me, this line says it all
why would our system be efficient when traffic densities are low
Thread Starter
Ferris, I am not so much into making it easier for controllers- I want to make it safer for Airline passengers as well as myself.
I believe it's nothing short of criminal the way we do not use the radar to reduce risk at Launy and other places like Hamilton Island.
The USA and Canada has plenty of large sectors where en-route controllers provide a very effective radar approach service to airports many hundreds of miles away.
Have you ever travelled to the USA and Canada to research this or are you accepting what you have been told?
I believe it's nothing short of criminal the way we do not use the radar to reduce risk at Launy and other places like Hamilton Island.
The USA and Canada has plenty of large sectors where en-route controllers provide a very effective radar approach service to airports many hundreds of miles away.
Have you ever travelled to the USA and Canada to research this or are you accepting what you have been told?
Thread Starter
Ferris, you ask what possible effect traffic levels could have on efficiency.
The effect is collossal- just compare the way aircraft are handled at some of our low traffic density class D airports compared to one of our GAAP airports or say the way traffic is handled at Darwin compared to Sydney or LAX.
I have been fortunate to fly as pilot in command in many countries around the world and I have found that the holding, diversions and delays nearly always come from the low traffic density airports.
This is often because they have not introduced modern and efficient procedures
The effect is collossal- just compare the way aircraft are handled at some of our low traffic density class D airports compared to one of our GAAP airports or say the way traffic is handled at Darwin compared to Sydney or LAX.
I have been fortunate to fly as pilot in command in many countries around the world and I have found that the holding, diversions and delays nearly always come from the low traffic density airports.
This is often because they have not introduced modern and efficient procedures
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, if you want to change the way the rules that govern how ATC is done (whether tower controllers use radar, for example), then lobby for that. But you dont seem to. You seem to expend enormous amounts of time and energy trying to change the airspace system, so one has to wonder (if you think "its criminal") why you are trying to change the whole airspace system and not the minor/simple/easy things that might deliver a tangible benefit (such as the tower at LT using the available radar)? It doesnt require a whole new system- just some rule changes and a bit of training. Of course, you would need to actually have staff to train.
There is the biggie, of course, which you consistenlty decline to even mention, let alone attempt change on-the charging regime.
After reading your last post- lets not get confused between "efficient handling of traffic" and "efficient use of resources". It might produce an excellent experience if Coffs had a dedicated flow, final radar directors etc etc. But wouldnt be tolerated in the waste of resources dept (and the cost to the users).
There is the biggie, of course, which you consistenlty decline to even mention, let alone attempt change on-the charging regime.
After reading your last post- lets not get confused between "efficient handling of traffic" and "efficient use of resources". It might produce an excellent experience if Coffs had a dedicated flow, final radar directors etc etc. But wouldnt be tolerated in the waste of resources dept (and the cost to the users).
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
.. more of the same!
.
RHS
.
Funnily enough, I have been working at said location today, and thus unable to reply fully just yet ... but never fear I shall
.
But I must say your post preceding 'the recipe' cracked me up
... you wish no one read the detail .... you can bet with that many hits most did/have 
thus no media have picked up your garbage headline!
.
But just to even the playing field lets start another thread with a summary of salient points from this one shall we ... perhaps it should be called
.
ADS-B, Sea Sprites - the empty rhetoric look at me thread - Another episode in the continuing saga of The Emperor Strikes Out
.
RHS
.
Funnily enough, I have been working at said location today, and thus unable to reply fully just yet ... but never fear I shall
.
But I must say your post preceding 'the recipe' cracked me up
... you wish no one read the detail .... you can bet with that many hits most did/have thus no media have picked up your garbage headline!.
But just to even the playing field lets start another thread with a summary of salient points from this one shall we ... perhaps it should be called
.
ADS-B, Sea Sprites - the empty rhetoric look at me thread - Another episode in the continuing saga of The Emperor Strikes Out
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Binghi
Because I am committed to telling the truth on here - I admit I have been called a bureaucrat many, many times. And with good cause. Bureaucrats are the reason you taxpayers may feel safe 'outstanding in your field'. I compliment you that for a simple farmer you have your aircraft so well equipped even to TCAS
Dick Smith
Yes, I am motivated to go flying together - someday - as you suggest. We have many things in common which is why I turned to humour instead of abuse, but it was a line ball.
CM
Agreed. The reason I took the line I did on this thread was that sooner or later the 'common man' must fight back against the 'droit de seigneur' and all posters here must realise that they are fully entitled to share their opinions constructively and not be subject to personal abuse or threat. (my new friend Peuce, where are you?)
The suggestion that becaus a poster is anon he may be maligned is akin to suggesting one can urinate on the 'man in the street' because he is unknown to one. I hope that phase is now behind us.
ALL
The debate can perhaps return to ADS-B (I think with WAAS thrown in).
STOP PRESS I believe from other advice that the JCP Phase 1 is about to move forward.
Dick (again)
Do unto others as you would have done to yourself. Your recent post indicates you have reflected accordingly and I thank you for that.
Now, what about you upending the glass?
Let me restate my own position. I am James Michael, I have no pecuniary gain in ADS-B, I intend to remain private (anon) and my own man beholden to no-one for my decisons. Take me as you find that and be very certain that I will not vary from the truth in what I state on here. If you malign me once more, we are divorced.
How about turning your undoubted talents to reflecting on the fact that ADS-B is potentially able to put Australia at the forefront of the world in safety, technology, and airspace - and looking for ways to move forward in a situation of trust for the benefit of GA, PTO, aircraft owners, and pilots. Instead of being a knocker - with a fair chance of history proving you a classic Aussie knocker who was wrong - how about bulldozing your way through the minor roadblocks and being seen as a crusader extraordinaire who was onboard the change?
Whichever, I'll be wandering along this thread providing what information I can.
If you really want to continue the existing position, how about a table on here with whom you are saving from what, and accepting the feedback it generates.
Because I am committed to telling the truth on here - I admit I have been called a bureaucrat many, many times. And with good cause. Bureaucrats are the reason you taxpayers may feel safe 'outstanding in your field'. I compliment you that for a simple farmer you have your aircraft so well equipped even to TCAS
Dick Smith
Yes, I am motivated to go flying together - someday - as you suggest. We have many things in common which is why I turned to humour instead of abuse, but it was a line ball.
CM
Agreed. The reason I took the line I did on this thread was that sooner or later the 'common man' must fight back against the 'droit de seigneur' and all posters here must realise that they are fully entitled to share their opinions constructively and not be subject to personal abuse or threat. (my new friend Peuce, where are you?)
The suggestion that becaus a poster is anon he may be maligned is akin to suggesting one can urinate on the 'man in the street' because he is unknown to one. I hope that phase is now behind us.
ALL
The debate can perhaps return to ADS-B (I think with WAAS thrown in).
STOP PRESS I believe from other advice that the JCP Phase 1 is about to move forward.
Dick (again)
Do unto others as you would have done to yourself. Your recent post indicates you have reflected accordingly and I thank you for that.
Now, what about you upending the glass?
Let me restate my own position. I am James Michael, I have no pecuniary gain in ADS-B, I intend to remain private (anon) and my own man beholden to no-one for my decisons. Take me as you find that and be very certain that I will not vary from the truth in what I state on here. If you malign me once more, we are divorced.
How about turning your undoubted talents to reflecting on the fact that ADS-B is potentially able to put Australia at the forefront of the world in safety, technology, and airspace - and looking for ways to move forward in a situation of trust for the benefit of GA, PTO, aircraft owners, and pilots. Instead of being a knocker - with a fair chance of history proving you a classic Aussie knocker who was wrong - how about bulldozing your way through the minor roadblocks and being seen as a crusader extraordinaire who was onboard the change?
Whichever, I'll be wandering along this thread providing what information I can.
If you really want to continue the existing position, how about a table on here with whom you are saving from what, and accepting the feedback it generates.
Thread Starter
Ferris, the resistance to change is so entrenched that it's basically impossible to change anything-even the most minor procedure that would improve efficiency.
For example the AIP states that joining directly on base at a non-twr aerodrome can be allowed with special CASA approval. I applied for approval to do this when it was safer to do so. If you check my DICKSMITHFLYER site you will see that even after 6 months of letter writing and even threatened legal action I could not get this approval. I point out that joining directly on base is allowed in every other country that I can get information on.
I have not just worked on changing our Airspace- most of my time has been spent on attempting to introduce simple proven procedures - all to no avail
The problem is the total lack of competent leadership in CASA and Airservices - surely you can see this .
Look at the present staffing problems- there is obviously no proper planning. I once expanded a business from nothing to $50 million turnover in 12 years by planning properly and involving my staff in every step of the way with the exciting adventure.
There are many simple procedures that could be introduced to save time and money- for example modern proven Class E climb procedures for IFR planned aircraft when in VMC.
You just need competent leadership!
For example the AIP states that joining directly on base at a non-twr aerodrome can be allowed with special CASA approval. I applied for approval to do this when it was safer to do so. If you check my DICKSMITHFLYER site you will see that even after 6 months of letter writing and even threatened legal action I could not get this approval. I point out that joining directly on base is allowed in every other country that I can get information on.
I have not just worked on changing our Airspace- most of my time has been spent on attempting to introduce simple proven procedures - all to no avail
The problem is the total lack of competent leadership in CASA and Airservices - surely you can see this .
Look at the present staffing problems- there is obviously no proper planning. I once expanded a business from nothing to $50 million turnover in 12 years by planning properly and involving my staff in every step of the way with the exciting adventure.
There are many simple procedures that could be introduced to save time and money- for example modern proven Class E climb procedures for IFR planned aircraft when in VMC.
You just need competent leadership!
Thread Starter
James, the problem I have is that all of my successful decisions in life have come after asking advice and debating the issues with real people. I am just no good at making decisions after debating anonymous people on a website.
Binghi
Because I am committed to telling the truth on here - I admit I have been called a bureaucrat many, many times. And with good cause. Bureaucrats are the reason you taxpayers may feel safe 'outstanding in your field'. I compliment you that for a simple farmer you have your aircraft so well equipped even to TCAS
Because I am committed to telling the truth on here - I admit I have been called a bureaucrat many, many times. And with good cause. Bureaucrats are the reason you taxpayers may feel safe 'outstanding in your field'. I compliment you that for a simple farmer you have your aircraft so well equipped even to TCAS
I expect some grovelling from you or it will be on for young and old
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB
My post 369, at the end I enquired about why people seem to imply that controllers would have a vested interest in having ADS-B implemented and references were made to it increasing controller numbers.
You asked for a reference where I thought the implications were. Please read and reply. P.S. Can you think of a reason why we would benefit materially? Its got me stuffed.
My post 369, at the end I enquired about why people seem to imply that controllers would have a vested interest in having ADS-B implemented and references were made to it increasing controller numbers.
You asked for a reference where I thought the implications were. Please read and reply. P.S. Can you think of a reason why we would benefit materially? Its got me stuffed.