Senate hearing and NAS – interesting answers from CASA
Thread Starter
Ollie_a, it sounds to me as if talking about safety issues is covered. Note particularly:
The very fact that it specifically says “business activities” sounds to me as if you can talk about safety issues.
Why wouldn’t they want you genuinely talking about safety issues under your own name? Then you are more likely to say what you really believe the truth is, rather than stating a number of furphies for the fun of it.
Capn Bloggs, you may not think it is incredibly complex, but low time pilots (especially farmers) certainly do.
For example, the US prescriptive procedures in relation to non-tower airports are about 80 words long in the FARs. Previously our prescriptive wording was over 300, and the latest proposal is over 1,000 words long. As you know, this includes (due to demands by your regional airline mates) requirements like having to call at 10 miles if you have one radio in the aircraft, and 8 minutes if you have two radios. You don’t think that is complex?
Capn Bloggs, “management of a confliction” (i.e. aircraft to aircraft dialogue) is necessary when in IMC and has the advantage that there is often not a lot of traffic in IMC at the same airport at the same time. It is a lot more difficult to try to do the same when VMC exists - i.e. trying to “manage” traffic as if you are an air traffic controller with every VFR aircraft in the area.
I will say it again. Once you jam the frequency with dialogue, no one else can say anything. That is the reason for minimal dialogue at our GAAP airports - simple announcements and directions mean a lot of traffic can be handled safely.
Bloggs, I stand by this statement:
If you want to cut corners, you can. I just don’t want to. Class D is the first class of airspace which requires mandatory radio for VFR under ICAO. This is for logical, sensible and rational scientific reasons. If you don’t have an air traffic controller to confirm that the radio is working, you would be pretty stupid to design a system which relied on radio for the required level of safety.
CaptainMidnight, I can assure you that Australia does show the Class E air traffic control boundaries on charts. Or are you suggesting that the Class E radio frequencies shown on charts are different to the air traffic control sector of the Class E controller?
Resist change as much as you like CaptainMidnight, but the frequency boundaries on the charts were put there because of the old full position Flight Service system. If you want to go back to that, do so and spend the $1.7 billion. If you want to move forward, frequency boundaries clearly reduce safety by making the VFR system so complex that VFR pilots are sometimes on the wrong frequency in the CTAF because they have been juggling so many frequencies and so many charts that they don’t quite know where they are.
If other countries can provide a very safe system by keeping it simple, there may be a lesson in that for us.
Individual employees should not communicate any information concerning Airservices Australia’s business activities to the media
Why wouldn’t they want you genuinely talking about safety issues under your own name? Then you are more likely to say what you really believe the truth is, rather than stating a number of furphies for the fun of it.
Capn Bloggs, you may not think it is incredibly complex, but low time pilots (especially farmers) certainly do.
For example, the US prescriptive procedures in relation to non-tower airports are about 80 words long in the FARs. Previously our prescriptive wording was over 300, and the latest proposal is over 1,000 words long. As you know, this includes (due to demands by your regional airline mates) requirements like having to call at 10 miles if you have one radio in the aircraft, and 8 minutes if you have two radios. You don’t think that is complex?
Capn Bloggs, “management of a confliction” (i.e. aircraft to aircraft dialogue) is necessary when in IMC and has the advantage that there is often not a lot of traffic in IMC at the same airport at the same time. It is a lot more difficult to try to do the same when VMC exists - i.e. trying to “manage” traffic as if you are an air traffic controller with every VFR aircraft in the area.
I will say it again. Once you jam the frequency with dialogue, no one else can say anything. That is the reason for minimal dialogue at our GAAP airports - simple announcements and directions mean a lot of traffic can be handled safely.
Bloggs, I stand by this statement:
Where traffic densities are such that see-and-avoid does not provide the required level of safety, CASA will require Class D or a higher level of airspace.
CaptainMidnight, I can assure you that Australia does show the Class E air traffic control boundaries on charts. Or are you suggesting that the Class E radio frequencies shown on charts are different to the air traffic control sector of the Class E controller?
Resist change as much as you like CaptainMidnight, but the frequency boundaries on the charts were put there because of the old full position Flight Service system. If you want to go back to that, do so and spend the $1.7 billion. If you want to move forward, frequency boundaries clearly reduce safety by making the VFR system so complex that VFR pilots are sometimes on the wrong frequency in the CTAF because they have been juggling so many frequencies and so many charts that they don’t quite know where they are.
If other countries can provide a very safe system by keeping it simple, there may be a lesson in that for us.
CaptainMidnight, I can assure you that Australia does show the Class E air traffic control boundaries on charts.
I repeat:
The function of the lines is to designate the E or FIA frequency to be used in the area, and are often placed with respect to VHF coverage to assist pilots to select the most appropriate frequency to communicate with ATC for the area in which they are operating.
And what is wrong with that?
In fact, Industry requested the boundaries be republished ASAP after they were deleted by the NASIG. To quote from some RAPAC minutes:
Don Mitchell proposed the following motion:
‘The QLD RAPAC Convenor write to Mr. Mike Smith NAS Implementation Group and express concern that previous correspondence has been ignored on the issue of reduced safety by the introduction of NAS. We draw your attention to the following points and require that they be addressed in writing prior to the published implementation date of 27 Nov 03:
1. We perceive a safety issue caused by the deletion of frequency boundary demarcation.
2. Inadequate and insufficient training material of specific reference for instructors and trainers.
3. Timing of distribution of Instructor Pack and difficulty in interpretation of documentation distributed.’
‘The QLD RAPAC Convenor write to Mr. Mike Smith NAS Implementation Group and express concern that previous correspondence has been ignored on the issue of reduced safety by the introduction of NAS. We draw your attention to the following points and require that they be addressed in writing prior to the published implementation date of 27 Nov 03:
1. We perceive a safety issue caused by the deletion of frequency boundary demarcation.
2. Inadequate and insufficient training material of specific reference for instructors and trainers.
3. Timing of distribution of Instructor Pack and difficulty in interpretation of documentation distributed.’
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boom, Boom, ACROBATIC. Nailed it in one!
OS, as someone else commented, it is a recurring argument. But if you don't keep rebutting, and just roll over, then the specious claims will be accepted as fact. Fact that the US NAS is superior, fact that what we have here is sub-optimal, fact that there is going to be a mid-air disaster etc.
As annoying as it is the debate needs professional people like yourself to rationally debunk the specious claims that are made on this forum - that includes playing the ball, not the man; regardless of what the opposition does. Otherwise, we will be back in the time where no one benefiitted, where the ill-will between sections of the industry was poisonous and where thousands, possibly millions, of taxpayers dollars were wasted in the chase for some sort of illusory 'airspace reform' holy grail.
I, for one, don't want to go back there.
OS, as someone else commented, it is a recurring argument. But if you don't keep rebutting, and just roll over, then the specious claims will be accepted as fact. Fact that the US NAS is superior, fact that what we have here is sub-optimal, fact that there is going to be a mid-air disaster etc.
As annoying as it is the debate needs professional people like yourself to rationally debunk the specious claims that are made on this forum - that includes playing the ball, not the man; regardless of what the opposition does. Otherwise, we will be back in the time where no one benefiitted, where the ill-will between sections of the industry was poisonous and where thousands, possibly millions, of taxpayers dollars were wasted in the chase for some sort of illusory 'airspace reform' holy grail.
I, for one, don't want to go back there.
Last edited by Howabout; 25th Jun 2009 at 09:07.
Well, I along with many others have debated these issues here for the last 9 years. Now I only rarely participate because I’ve had enough of the repetition, getting nowhere and personal attacks.
However on the NAS issue –
I have always believed – and said here many times - before any proposed change to airspace architecture and associated procedures, there must first be:
then I'm comfortable with the brand 
However on the NAS issue –
I have always believed – and said here many times - before any proposed change to airspace architecture and associated procedures, there must first be:
- a cost-benefit analysis exercise conducted, proving beneficial outcomes
- a thorough safety analysis and hazid conducted
- comprehensive industry consultation and – importantly – agreement by the industry that the changes are necessary and beneficial, and
- a thorough industry education campaign.
Resist change as much as you like CaptainMidnight
Thread Starter
Howabout, some "professional" people.
They are not even game to put their names to the debate!
More like amateur fundamentalists if you ask me!
Captain Midnight, why is it that not one other country in the world shows such boundaries?
It's like having unique road rules - we don't because international tourists would not be able to drive here without a special Australian licence and that would substantially reduce tourist income.
Then again we don't want foreign pilots flying here-- might bring in overseas funds and we don't want that in aviation.
By the way, the reason no other countries show the boundaries is that safety is actually reduced by making the system complicated and unique- it's why we get so many problems in CTAF's.
Before 1991 you were told when to change frequency when full position VFR- just like IFR today..
If you want that again pay the $1.6 billion
They are not even game to put their names to the debate!
More like amateur fundamentalists if you ask me!
Captain Midnight, why is it that not one other country in the world shows such boundaries?
It's like having unique road rules - we don't because international tourists would not be able to drive here without a special Australian licence and that would substantially reduce tourist income.
Then again we don't want foreign pilots flying here-- might bring in overseas funds and we don't want that in aviation.
By the way, the reason no other countries show the boundaries is that safety is actually reduced by making the system complicated and unique- it's why we get so many problems in CTAF's.
Before 1991 you were told when to change frequency when full position VFR- just like IFR today..
If you want that again pay the $1.6 billion
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, well said, fundamental to all the more centralist views is the concept of absolute safety at any cost, no matter that this is impossible in a transport environment.
The vitiation of rational argument is a palpable response to any person who opposes the ultra conservative fundamentalist view.
Very little is said in respect to Risk Management Principles.
The vitiation of rational argument is a palpable response to any person who opposes the ultra conservative fundamentalist view.
Very little is said in respect to Risk Management Principles.
Howabout, some "professional" people.
They are not even game to put their names to the debate!
They are not even game to put their names to the debate!
If I'm going to risk it all it'll be for something worthwhile, not this little sideshow. Revealing my name would add nothing to the debate - I'm just a controller.
More like amateur fundamentalists if you ask me!
Last edited by le Pingouin; 25th Jun 2009 at 12:03.
Grumpy
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 35-21 South 149-06 East
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get somewhat confused at times about all this vitriol whenever Dick Smith raises an issue and pushes his point of view.
I more often than not do not agree with some of his quick fixes but have to say that he has got some basic elements very right that we sometimes forget. It should not be personal and I think Dick needs to be given credit for the moderate language he usually uses.
Like the alphabet airspace - the concept is great and works well. We just seem to argue about which bit of spaghetti needs to be put where and this is legitimate and should be encouraged.
Yes - FSUs were closed - yes many Met Offices were closed. As far as I am aware the ATSB has not attributed any accident to the fact that this happened. More of an inconvenience if anything.
Some control towers were also closed - quite right when only two or four RPT flights a day were being handled.
Like the abolition of full reporting for VFR - aircraft have not crashed into to each other as everyone predicted - except we have had a few mid-airs in controlled airspace (not in G since December 1991) - yes it was that long ago.
Now we seem to argue about the use of radar - what little we have.
Keep the debate going - and maintain the rage.
But I remember one of the most important messages promoted at the time of AMATS - if you can See outside - Look outside - IFR as well.
Barkly
I more often than not do not agree with some of his quick fixes but have to say that he has got some basic elements very right that we sometimes forget. It should not be personal and I think Dick needs to be given credit for the moderate language he usually uses.
Like the alphabet airspace - the concept is great and works well. We just seem to argue about which bit of spaghetti needs to be put where and this is legitimate and should be encouraged.
Yes - FSUs were closed - yes many Met Offices were closed. As far as I am aware the ATSB has not attributed any accident to the fact that this happened. More of an inconvenience if anything.
Some control towers were also closed - quite right when only two or four RPT flights a day were being handled.
Like the abolition of full reporting for VFR - aircraft have not crashed into to each other as everyone predicted - except we have had a few mid-airs in controlled airspace (not in G since December 1991) - yes it was that long ago.
Now we seem to argue about the use of radar - what little we have.
Keep the debate going - and maintain the rage.
But I remember one of the most important messages promoted at the time of AMATS - if you can See outside - Look outside - IFR as well.
Barkly
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
You have little idea, I suspect, as regards the level of admiration that exists among those of us that don't want a bar of your airspace 'reforms.'
We've sat there riveted when you flew DIK around the world. We've seen the Ball's Pyramid stuff - original and revisited - and we sit back and marvel at your adventurous spirit. You are admired mate, but we don't want to revisit a costly, worthless exercise that will divide industry once more.
It's taken two years to recover from the bloodshed. Don't do it to us again.
You have little idea, I suspect, as regards the level of admiration that exists among those of us that don't want a bar of your airspace 'reforms.'
We've sat there riveted when you flew DIK around the world. We've seen the Ball's Pyramid stuff - original and revisited - and we sit back and marvel at your adventurous spirit. You are admired mate, but we don't want to revisit a costly, worthless exercise that will divide industry once more.
It's taken two years to recover from the bloodshed. Don't do it to us again.
Grandpa Aerotart
When FS went the way of the Dodo and was no longer there to inform pilots when a frequency change was required was it not simply common sense to incorporate frequency boundaries so a pilot would know when to change frequencies without being told?
I would suggest it makes perfect sense. That other countries chose not to do so simply proves the old adage of common sense being rather uncommon.
Vast areas of G airspace in a country like Australia, with its traffic densities, is simply a fact of life. It doesn't make sense to have any other system. That some towns in the GAFA warrant a jet service and that jet service functions in G airspace is also just an unfortunate financial fact of life...NO one says its ideal or how we would prefer it in a perfect world...but we don't live in a perfect world.
That does NOT mean that E airspace around BN/SY/et al is a good idea or even a better idea. Any airspace requiring a clearance/flight plan etc for IFR traffic but is free range for VFR aircraft (flown by a wide variety of skill levels) is simply an airspace horse's ar$e.
Just because Gove or Ayers Rock has a daily 717 that is forced by life's realities to fly in G doesn't mean that forcing dozens of 767s/737s/747s and sundry silly french aeroplanes (that's humor) to fly through E inbound to Brisbane, for example, is world's best bloody practice!!
You want simple?
We had simple - and you cocked it up.
We had CTA/OCTA - C/G if you want. You thought that was too complex for foreign pilots?
We had a few common sense radio calls, then we had 'don't use the radio' - complete with a very stern looking AsA person - and now we have 5 freaking calls every circuit.
Simple? Australian pilots, even instructors, can't keep up with the BS - what hope foreign pilots?
But then DOTARs, or WTF they are called this week, fixed the foreign pilot issue with the completely moronic ASIC cards - and destroyed several businesses in the process - didn't see you throwing your 'expert' status at that fight?
We had worlds best practice once...now we just have a half ar$ed version of what other countries do.
I would suggest it makes perfect sense. That other countries chose not to do so simply proves the old adage of common sense being rather uncommon.
Vast areas of G airspace in a country like Australia, with its traffic densities, is simply a fact of life. It doesn't make sense to have any other system. That some towns in the GAFA warrant a jet service and that jet service functions in G airspace is also just an unfortunate financial fact of life...NO one says its ideal or how we would prefer it in a perfect world...but we don't live in a perfect world.
That does NOT mean that E airspace around BN/SY/et al is a good idea or even a better idea. Any airspace requiring a clearance/flight plan etc for IFR traffic but is free range for VFR aircraft (flown by a wide variety of skill levels) is simply an airspace horse's ar$e.
Just because Gove or Ayers Rock has a daily 717 that is forced by life's realities to fly in G doesn't mean that forcing dozens of 767s/737s/747s and sundry silly french aeroplanes (that's humor) to fly through E inbound to Brisbane, for example, is world's best bloody practice!!
You want simple?
We had simple - and you cocked it up.
We had CTA/OCTA - C/G if you want. You thought that was too complex for foreign pilots?
We had a few common sense radio calls, then we had 'don't use the radio' - complete with a very stern looking AsA person - and now we have 5 freaking calls every circuit.
Simple? Australian pilots, even instructors, can't keep up with the BS - what hope foreign pilots?
But then DOTARs, or WTF they are called this week, fixed the foreign pilot issue with the completely moronic ASIC cards - and destroyed several businesses in the process - didn't see you throwing your 'expert' status at that fight?
We had worlds best practice once...now we just have a half ar$ed version of what other countries do.
Barkly,
Yes, sometimes his ideas have merit but as you say often they don't. The problem is he has at time had the ear (or is that testicles?) of people with influence and power (aka our ertswhile political leaders) who can't tell the difference.
Yes, sometimes his ideas have merit but as you say often they don't. The problem is he has at time had the ear (or is that testicles?) of people with influence and power (aka our ertswhile political leaders) who can't tell the difference.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some quick questions, Dick.
Was 'the industry' healthier back in the 80's, in the days when there was full-reporting, free charts, FSUs etc- all those things you proudly claim the removal of, as achievements? Was it?
After you 'saved' all those billions of dollars from the industry, where did they (the billions) go? Did they develop the industry in some way? Promote it? Did they expand airports and their infrastructure? Did they pay for better servicing of the industry in anyway?
Is it cheaper to fly now, or was it then? Do you think that the difference in expense has anything to do with the 'state of the industry'?
Finally, why do you think anything you did concerning 'the industry' helped it in any way, and what do you base that on?
Was 'the industry' healthier back in the 80's, in the days when there was full-reporting, free charts, FSUs etc- all those things you proudly claim the removal of, as achievements? Was it?
After you 'saved' all those billions of dollars from the industry, where did they (the billions) go? Did they develop the industry in some way? Promote it? Did they expand airports and their infrastructure? Did they pay for better servicing of the industry in anyway?
Is it cheaper to fly now, or was it then? Do you think that the difference in expense has anything to do with the 'state of the industry'?
Finally, why do you think anything you did concerning 'the industry' helped it in any way, and what do you base that on?
Grandpa Aerotart
Nothing was 'free' in the good old days...we payed for it all via fuel tax.
Was a very good and fair system too..user pays in fact...now we have 'user pays' on top of higher taxes on fuel and get less for our money
Was a very good and fair system too..user pays in fact...now we have 'user pays' on top of higher taxes on fuel and get less for our money
Dick,
In the spirit of putting the facts on the table, I can recall when you were personally advised, back in the AMATS days, that ...
"having Controllers work controlled & uncontrolled airspace together would create situations where vectoring jets could be interrupted by VFR transmissions ... WX requests, flight plan submissions, QNH requests, self separation management etc ..."
That was poo-pooed. Unfortunately, the chickens are coming home to roost.
And, as I can read your mind now, before you say ... "Ah, but if they did it the way I intended (that is, shut up) then there wouldn't be a problem"
My suggestion would be to take a large dose of reality ... that ain't gunna happen! VFR pilots need to, and will always, communicate with each other. It's one of the 3 principles of professional flight ... Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.
In the spirit of putting the facts on the table, I can recall when you were personally advised, back in the AMATS days, that ...
"having Controllers work controlled & uncontrolled airspace together would create situations where vectoring jets could be interrupted by VFR transmissions ... WX requests, flight plan submissions, QNH requests, self separation management etc ..."
That was poo-pooed. Unfortunately, the chickens are coming home to roost.
And, as I can read your mind now, before you say ... "Ah, but if they did it the way I intended (that is, shut up) then there wouldn't be a problem"
My suggestion would be to take a large dose of reality ... that ain't gunna happen! VFR pilots need to, and will always, communicate with each other. It's one of the 3 principles of professional flight ... Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.
Dick,
As for "where's the $1.7 billion's worth of lost safety since the demise of IN/OUT ..."
What would be the $$s on the loss of two 747 hulls and all souls on board?
I daresay you might have gobbled up a large slice of the (alleged) $1.7billion in one accident.
Have there been any other near misses or increases in VCAs??
I would also suggest that Air Traffic Control has had to manage far more safety and risk mitigators than before taking over OCTA. I'm not sure, but having to manage, say, 20 mitigation actions, instead of 10 ... would put an extra strain on the Safety Management System. ... with the potential creation of more holes, for the lining up of, in the Swiss cheese.
As for "where's the $1.7 billion's worth of lost safety since the demise of IN/OUT ..."
For example, there was an incident with a 747SP a number of years ago, where the excuse given by the air traffic controller for nearly putting this aircraft into another (and killing hundreds of people) was the diversion created by a VFR pilot making self-announcements.
I daresay you might have gobbled up a large slice of the (alleged) $1.7billion in one accident.
Have there been any other near misses or increases in VCAs??
I would also suggest that Air Traffic Control has had to manage far more safety and risk mitigators than before taking over OCTA. I'm not sure, but having to manage, say, 20 mitigation actions, instead of 10 ... would put an extra strain on the Safety Management System. ... with the potential creation of more holes, for the lining up of, in the Swiss cheese.
Thread Starter
Chimbu Chuckles, I think you will find the reason other countries don’t have frequency boundaries is so that pilots will concentrate on being on the CTAF frequency when in the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome. This gives very high levels of safety in countries with many times the density of traffic that we have. Extraordinarily enough, they don’t have anything like the problems we claim to have in relation to radio in CTAFs.
The latest document from CASA trying to solve the CTAF issue is now over 1,000 words long – making it more and more complex, more and more mandatory, and no doubt with more and more threatened fines - which are never enforced.
Where does it get us? I’d say with even more errors due to the complexity.
If you go to the United States, Europe, UK or Canada you will find that they are not obsessed with radio calls in CTAFs. Before I started the reforms, we didn’t have CTAFs. All aerodromes were either on the area frequency, or a local Flight Service frequency in an AFIZ.
Moving to CTAFs we needed to go to a simple, proven system. That hasn’t yet happened. That is why we have continuing problems.
I’m not giving up because I’m going to make sure we either go back to the proven system we had prior to 1991 – with all its incredible cost – or move properly forward to a proven system that is different to our pre-1991 system.
I am not prepared to let us remain in this half-baked experimental system that exists because of constant resistance to change, and ill-informed people doing everything they can to resist reform.
Howabout, if you have ever wondered why I’ve had some success in things like flying around the world (while you were riveted) and in climbing Balls Pyramid successfully, it is because I ask advice and copy the success of others.
I have absolutely no doubt that we will end up with a proven safe airspace system. It is going to take a few years longer. One of the reasons I have no doubt is that not one of you people are game to put your name to your beliefs. That can only mean you don’t really believe in what you are saying.
All this crap about you not being allowed to talk openly about safety issues is just that – crap.
You don’t put your name to what you say because you know that reasonable thinking people would realise that your minds were closed and all you were trying to do is stick with the status quo.
Look at the Office of Airspace Regulation. It has been there for two years but no measurable change has come out of it at all. Have we been able to improve the use of radar as per the ATSB recommendation after the Benalla crash? No. Have we been able to resolve the CTAF issue? No. Have we been able to rationalise the military airspace classifications? No.
Those who had high hopes about moving airspace regulation from Airservices (the profit making organisation) to CASA (the so-called regulator), it has all failed.
As Qantas employee Alan Green fought like mad to stop the Victor 1 lane – and failed – other people who resist change without any rational or scientific reason will also fail.
The latest document from CASA trying to solve the CTAF issue is now over 1,000 words long – making it more and more complex, more and more mandatory, and no doubt with more and more threatened fines - which are never enforced.
Where does it get us? I’d say with even more errors due to the complexity.
If you go to the United States, Europe, UK or Canada you will find that they are not obsessed with radio calls in CTAFs. Before I started the reforms, we didn’t have CTAFs. All aerodromes were either on the area frequency, or a local Flight Service frequency in an AFIZ.
Moving to CTAFs we needed to go to a simple, proven system. That hasn’t yet happened. That is why we have continuing problems.
I’m not giving up because I’m going to make sure we either go back to the proven system we had prior to 1991 – with all its incredible cost – or move properly forward to a proven system that is different to our pre-1991 system.
I am not prepared to let us remain in this half-baked experimental system that exists because of constant resistance to change, and ill-informed people doing everything they can to resist reform.
Howabout, if you have ever wondered why I’ve had some success in things like flying around the world (while you were riveted) and in climbing Balls Pyramid successfully, it is because I ask advice and copy the success of others.
I have absolutely no doubt that we will end up with a proven safe airspace system. It is going to take a few years longer. One of the reasons I have no doubt is that not one of you people are game to put your name to your beliefs. That can only mean you don’t really believe in what you are saying.
All this crap about you not being allowed to talk openly about safety issues is just that – crap.
You don’t put your name to what you say because you know that reasonable thinking people would realise that your minds were closed and all you were trying to do is stick with the status quo.
Look at the Office of Airspace Regulation. It has been there for two years but no measurable change has come out of it at all. Have we been able to improve the use of radar as per the ATSB recommendation after the Benalla crash? No. Have we been able to resolve the CTAF issue? No. Have we been able to rationalise the military airspace classifications? No.
Those who had high hopes about moving airspace regulation from Airservices (the profit making organisation) to CASA (the so-called regulator), it has all failed.
As Qantas employee Alan Green fought like mad to stop the Victor 1 lane – and failed – other people who resist change without any rational or scientific reason will also fail.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 26th Jun 2009 at 00:21.
Thread Starter
Ferris, in the good old days you were referring to, the costs were actually paid by an annual air nav fee for GA. This, and the amounts paid by the airlines, covered about 50% of the cost of the whole catastrophe.
The Government of the day – long before I was involved – decided that not only should the industry pay its way, but in relation to air traffic control a profit should also be given to the Government.
I was the one who vocally stated, “If you are going to do that, you will have to bring in some pretty major efficiency gains and copy the best from around the world, or we won’t have an industry at all.”
I personally loved Flight Service – they were friendly blokes who helped a lot – however the cost may have been afforded by myself, but not by the general industry.
Yes, I accepted that you could not have controllers working controlled and uncontrolled airspace if VFR aircraft were making self-announcements. That is why we looked around the world and decided to copy a system which did not have such an occurrence.
You can fly across the USA or Canada all day, monitoring the Class E or Class A IFR enroute frequency and never hear a VFR pilot make an announcement. Remember that there are around 240,000 aircraft in the United States.
VFR pilots are going to need to communicate to each other but there is a frequency to do that – it shouldn’t be on an air traffic control “control” frequency.
Don’t worry, I’m getting somewhere. There used to be wall to wall chatter in the Sydney light aircraft lane, jamming the approach frequency on a weekend. That has virtually completely gone now, so people do learn.
No VFR pilot wants to cause an air traffic controller to put one airliner he or she is controlling into another airliner.
I’ll say it again. We either have to complete the reforms and move to a proven system, or return to our old system of full position reporting with completely separate frequencies for Flight Service and ATC. That will be very expensive and thousands more jobs will be lost in aviation.
It would be great to return to the system where the general taxpayer paid 50% of our costs, but I can’t see that happening and I’m not the person to call for it. People would say that I was selfish!
The Government of the day – long before I was involved – decided that not only should the industry pay its way, but in relation to air traffic control a profit should also be given to the Government.
I was the one who vocally stated, “If you are going to do that, you will have to bring in some pretty major efficiency gains and copy the best from around the world, or we won’t have an industry at all.”
I personally loved Flight Service – they were friendly blokes who helped a lot – however the cost may have been afforded by myself, but not by the general industry.
Yes, I accepted that you could not have controllers working controlled and uncontrolled airspace if VFR aircraft were making self-announcements. That is why we looked around the world and decided to copy a system which did not have such an occurrence.
You can fly across the USA or Canada all day, monitoring the Class E or Class A IFR enroute frequency and never hear a VFR pilot make an announcement. Remember that there are around 240,000 aircraft in the United States.
VFR pilots are going to need to communicate to each other but there is a frequency to do that – it shouldn’t be on an air traffic control “control” frequency.
Don’t worry, I’m getting somewhere. There used to be wall to wall chatter in the Sydney light aircraft lane, jamming the approach frequency on a weekend. That has virtually completely gone now, so people do learn.
No VFR pilot wants to cause an air traffic controller to put one airliner he or she is controlling into another airliner.
I’ll say it again. We either have to complete the reforms and move to a proven system, or return to our old system of full position reporting with completely separate frequencies for Flight Service and ATC. That will be very expensive and thousands more jobs will be lost in aviation.
It would be great to return to the system where the general taxpayer paid 50% of our costs, but I can’t see that happening and I’m not the person to call for it. People would say that I was selfish!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 26th Jun 2009 at 00:22.
If you don’t have an air traffic controller to confirm that the radio is working, you would be pretty stupid to design a system which relied on radio for the required level of safety.
You are the fundamentalist, stuck in your 1950s USA time warp, not knowing what goes on in the real world, desperately holding on to an outdated, inflexible airspace labeling system. Let it go, Dick.
