Dick Smith's letter to the PM re Tasmania.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith's letter to the PM re Tasmania.
An interesting letter has been posted on Dick Smith’s website – see here.or Important Information on Launceston Air Incident
Special interesting comment by John King of the King Flight schools, viz
“This airspace design may be an accident of history, but it is one that ought to be changed.”
Does anyone know why the ATSB did not make any safety recommendations at all? Seems strange.
Special interesting comment by John King of the King Flight schools, viz
“This airspace design may be an accident of history, but it is one that ought to be changed.”
Does anyone know why the ATSB did not make any safety recommendations at all? Seems strange.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 19th Jul 2010 at 00:56.
Folks,
This will be interesting ----- in the middle of an election campaign. Which major party will pick this up first ---- Tasmania tourism survives in air links.
Particularly interesting, because the Greens, and Tasmanian Senator Bob Brown, have long supported Dick Smith wanting to upgrade control services, especially when radar (and now multi-lateration in Tasmania) is already available.
Which major party will be the first to come come out with a policy statement supporting Dick, when it will bring with it some absolutely vital Greens preferences.
Who knows, maybe we will get a party policy for aviation with some real detail, and not just a string of wet platitudes.
Tootle pip!!
This will be interesting ----- in the middle of an election campaign. Which major party will pick this up first ---- Tasmania tourism survives in air links.
Particularly interesting, because the Greens, and Tasmanian Senator Bob Brown, have long supported Dick Smith wanting to upgrade control services, especially when radar (and now multi-lateration in Tasmania) is already available.
Which major party will be the first to come come out with a policy statement supporting Dick, when it will bring with it some absolutely vital Greens preferences.
Who knows, maybe we will get a party policy for aviation with some real detail, and not just a string of wet platitudes.
Tootle pip!!
Interesting ....
In principle, Dick has a point. Where there is surveillance, and where RPTs operate ...why not provide an ATC service ... of some sort?
Although, that would presumably require an equipment, training and resource committment ... which does come at a cost.
However, I will never support bringing in E if it's outside surveillance coverage and is attached to VFR "Broadcast" requirements.
By the way ... can someone legally force the Government to comply with a present or past Ministerial Direction?
Taking it further, can someone legally force the Government to comply with an election promise ??
In principle, Dick has a point. Where there is surveillance, and where RPTs operate ...why not provide an ATC service ... of some sort?
Although, that would presumably require an equipment, training and resource committment ... which does come at a cost.
However, I will never support bringing in E if it's outside surveillance coverage and is attached to VFR "Broadcast" requirements.
By the way ... can someone legally force the Government to comply with a present or past Ministerial Direction?
Taking it further, can someone legally force the Government to comply with an election promise ??
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
So then.....Does Dick believe that Launy should become Class C, and E after hours? Is that what he really wants? And is ASA going to be able to provide it?
J
J
What a load of emotive, sensationalist claptrap. Put in as much E as you want, Dick. And don't forget to remind everybody how much extra it will cost. Perhaps even get a quote from Greg Russell.
I cannot believe (well, I can, actually) the lengths that he will go to to get E airspace in. If there is surveillance there, it should be D or C! You want to protect RPT? Control VFRs as well/get them in the system (just like they are over the top of LAX) so Tobago/Launy doesn't happen again.
Ledsled, get real. Do you really believe that the green tomatoes will give their preferences to the Libs if the Budgie Smuggler puts in swathes of E?
I cannot believe (well, I can, actually) the lengths that he will go to to get E airspace in. If there is surveillance there, it should be D or C! You want to protect RPT? Control VFRs as well/get them in the system (just like they are over the top of LAX) so Tobago/Launy doesn't happen again.
Ledsled, get real. Do you really believe that the green tomatoes will give their preferences to the Libs if the Budgie Smuggler puts in swathes of E?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting letter, but I have noted that it didn't cover the near miss between the 737 and the Tobago. A strange omission when we are discussing airline passenger safety. Nor does it mention the increased safety risk in E outside of radar to airline passengers. No mention of Broome or Karratha airspace issues. Seems like the full story is not being told Mr Smith.
It's called Brick Wall Syndrome.
Find a nice brick wall, bang head against it , when head hurts stop take a long breath and then continue bashing head against brick wall.
That folks is the best way to achieve airspace reform in this country.
Find a nice brick wall, bang head against it , when head hurts stop take a long breath and then continue bashing head against brick wall.
That folks is the best way to achieve airspace reform in this country.
What a load of hot air!
The simplest solution to this issue is overlooked. Two HVY RPT aircraft arrive over Launy A/H....why would this be the case?...cost to operators?
How would this issue be resolved? Maybe, extra staff to man the TWR to 1300 every day that services are scheduled? Extra O/T for the hard working staff of Launy TWR?...I dunno...just spit balling here. C over D till 1300 daily...but then...The Rat's orange t
d and the Harlot would have to pay for the service.....User Pays????
Why bash away at a lost cause BS US U/S airspace..just go away, Dick..there are simpler and easier ways of fixing this problem without adding to it.
The simplest solution to this issue is overlooked. Two HVY RPT aircraft arrive over Launy A/H....why would this be the case?...cost to operators?
How would this issue be resolved? Maybe, extra staff to man the TWR to 1300 every day that services are scheduled? Extra O/T for the hard working staff of Launy TWR?...I dunno...just spit balling here. C over D till 1300 daily...but then...The Rat's orange t
d and the Harlot would have to pay for the service.....User Pays????Why bash away at a lost cause BS US U/S airspace..just go away, Dick..there are simpler and easier ways of fixing this problem without adding to it.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And we swan along and ignore the real threat that goes to unannounced VFRs in E having heavy metal coitus with RPT.
From my perspective it's just more of the same. Badger the pollies who don't have a clue.
From my perspective it's just more of the same. Badger the pollies who don't have a clue.
Odd they were holding at 3100ft on the opposite side of the airfield to the approach anyway. If we need Class E to protect against this sort of incident, then we absolutely need Class D/C to protect jets against VFR.
Bloggs,
At least you have to be given 10 out of 10 for blind obstinacy about "VFR Threats" in Class E, that apparently don't happen if it's Class G.
And 10 out or 10 for not having a clue about the risk management hierarchy of ICAO (not just US) airspace classifications.
Indeed, you would have been distressed to hear John McCormick's comments at the last CASA SCC meeting, in particular his comments about the nonsense claims by particular Australian pilot groups, that E airspace "requires" radar, and stating the formal ICAO position that radar is for efficiency -- increased movement rates, not "safety".
The acoustics were not too good, but he did use a less than complimentary expression, I think it was "troglodytes". He made the point that London Garwick is a Class D zone, but handles a level of traffic unknown at any Australian airport, and all on a single runway.
The head of OAR followed up, pointing out that, theoretically, radar is not required in any ICAO class of airspace ---- notwithstanding the fact that Class C and B airspace are almost universally "radar controlled".
Tootle pip!!
At least you have to be given 10 out of 10 for blind obstinacy about "VFR Threats" in Class E, that apparently don't happen if it's Class G.
And 10 out or 10 for not having a clue about the risk management hierarchy of ICAO (not just US) airspace classifications.
Indeed, you would have been distressed to hear John McCormick's comments at the last CASA SCC meeting, in particular his comments about the nonsense claims by particular Australian pilot groups, that E airspace "requires" radar, and stating the formal ICAO position that radar is for efficiency -- increased movement rates, not "safety".
The acoustics were not too good, but he did use a less than complimentary expression, I think it was "troglodytes". He made the point that London Garwick is a Class D zone, but handles a level of traffic unknown at any Australian airport, and all on a single runway.
The head of OAR followed up, pointing out that, theoretically, radar is not required in any ICAO class of airspace ---- notwithstanding the fact that Class C and B airspace are almost universally "radar controlled".
Tootle pip!!
Folks,
See below from the Dick Smith Flyer, and watch tomorrow's newspapers in Tasmania.
Dick Smith Flyer
Tootle pip!!
See below from the Dick Smith Flyer, and watch tomorrow's newspapers in Tasmania.
Important Information on Launceston Air Incident
Public Announcement in Tasmanian Newspapers
Public Announcement in Tasmanian Newspapers
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The head of OAR followed up, pointing out that, theoretically, radar is not required in any ICAO class of airspace ---- notwithstanding the fact that Class C and B airspace are almost universally "radar controlled".
Lead, you can't have it both ways.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can remember when Launy tower was H24. Extend the hours to cover the RPT flights and away goes the problem. Provision of ATC shouldn't be on a user pays system, it should be a government responsibility.
One can imagine the headlines tomorrow in Tasmania, sensational bulldust. From all accounts Smith is not all that popular in Tasmania and it could bite him on the bum.
One can imagine the headlines tomorrow in Tasmania, sensational bulldust. From all accounts Smith is not all that popular in Tasmania and it could bite him on the bum.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Undecided ?
Perhaps 'Dick' has been using his superb invention the 'Decision Maker' to make the right choice about which airsapce classification is best ??
Howabout,
I don't want "it", whatever "it" is, both ways.
I merely stated the theoretical ICAO position, and the actual position.
If you want my personal position, it is that the ICAO position on provision of radar is long outdated, given the risk management basis of ICAO airspace classification. It is difficult to see a level of traffic that genuinely requires Class C to achieve the necessary separation assurance, without, in practical terms, needing radar.
Hence the preponderance of radar in Class C.
Tootle pip!!
I don't want "it", whatever "it" is, both ways.
I merely stated the theoretical ICAO position, and the actual position.
If you want my personal position, it is that the ICAO position on provision of radar is long outdated, given the risk management basis of ICAO airspace classification. It is difficult to see a level of traffic that genuinely requires Class C to achieve the necessary separation assurance, without, in practical terms, needing radar.
Hence the preponderance of radar in Class C.
Tootle pip!!
Ledsled,
Class D at Gatwick? Good. Let's do it here. Up to C.
Radar improves efficiency? Agree. Tell your mate Dick, who can tell his mate John Anderson to pull Dick's demand that John issue a mandate to install radar for C. I think I got that right.
You've had a couple of months to research it: what is meant, exactly, by "Continuous Two Way" comms by VFR in E? Waiting, waiting, waiting...
Risk Management? "Vanishingly small" risk of a Tobago Airprox with a RPT jet in E soon after non-radar Free-in-E is introduced. Keep at it, son. You'll go places.
Can't wait for the Tassie announcement tomorrow. What's the bet Dick will be making it from a tree with Bob holding the brolly?
Class D at Gatwick? Good. Let's do it here. Up to C.
Radar improves efficiency? Agree. Tell your mate Dick, who can tell his mate John Anderson to pull Dick's demand that John issue a mandate to install radar for C. I think I got that right.
At least you have to be given 10 out of 10 for blind obstinacy about "VFR Threats" in Class E, that apparently don't happen if it's Class G.
Risk Management? "Vanishingly small" risk of a Tobago Airprox with a RPT jet in E soon after non-radar Free-in-E is introduced. Keep at it, son. You'll go places.
Can't wait for the Tassie announcement tomorrow. What's the bet Dick will be making it from a tree with Bob holding the brolly?