C'mon DICK SMITH, this was a cheap attempt to grab some publicity.

You are above this sort of stunt, and whomever your publicity agent was who decided to run with this, needs your severe reprimand, before it backfires on YOU.

Take control, Dick, and show the leadership qualities that have got you to the position that you are in.

{Just as a sideline, yesterday I had to make a go-around.
Today I'm here to talk about it!}

Edit:- Worlds Worst, your ignorance of separation standards between IFR-IFR and IFR-VFR aircraft is suitably demonstrated by your pathetic post, that probably might catch the sympathy of a non-aviating layman. (Your name isn't John A. is it?)
Sit back down in seat 34C, fasten your seat belt, and shut the fcuk up!

Yeah, sorry Ferris, mate – forgot that they’d had all day to look at the crossword. How about:

28 Across: (5,2,3,5): Wild wild throw with a deranged snort – could this indicate how good they are?

- o - - - , i - , - - - , - o - - - .

:O


Oh, and Kaptin M,

I always thought you knew how to keep 'em apart. Guess that's why I'm WORLD'S WORST.

:ugh:

Must be a full moon or something. My favourite part is when the Waaaah brigade come in and make their mob look even more stupid.

Not exactly on point, but this story may give a further insight into Dick's perspective on the world. Coincidentally, the story involves Dick's Caravan and water.

A recent edition of a flying-related magazine contains a story about a ferry flight of Dick's Caravan from the US back to Australia. All the preliminaries to the flight went well, then this:I wonder how many of you welcome those kinds of surprises, and encourage your colleagues to make their own judgment about putting things on paper.

An interesting aside: the story made some very good points about the difficulty in getting insurance for these kinds of flights. I wonder what the insurance company would have done if the pilot had decided to return to the departure aerodrome, but the aircraft had been damaged as a result difficulties in manoeuvring or landing at MTOW times 2.

Finally, I note that the ferry tanks all have "Dick Smith Foods" labels on them. A message from Dick's PA: Dick says thanks for me tanks, Aussie taxpayers!

So, Kaptin M.

I’ve just pulled MATS from my overhead storage locker here at 34C. Didn’t realize how much really useful stuff is in here. Even talks about being nice to pilots – even VFR pilots. Something about providing a service.

Let me see if I’ve got this right.

V1 – 500 feet

1. Between IFR and VFR flights; or

2. Between SVFR flights, where SVFR clearance is due to visibility.

And

1. Both aircraft are 7,000 KG or less;

2. Both aircraft are at or below 10,000 FT;

And

3. Traffic information is provided to the IFR flight, unless it is impracticable.

So, if I’m right, 1000 applies here.

Now, sure, I could assign 7500 on climb, or 9500 on descent, but my poor old IFR jockey might get real nervous at a VFR level – so maybe, as a caring and considerate controller, I might just pick the nearest available IFR level – maybe, er, let me think, 7,000 for the climber, and, er, um, let me think again, er, 10,000 for the descender.

Ooops – and I thought I was the world’s worst!

Oh well, back to the drawing board.



:(

World's Worst

Let me see if I have got this right, X number of aluminium tubes filled with say a thousand people at least, block off some 3000 feet of airspace, climb or descent restriction burning heaven knows how many extra Kg of fuel just to let the DS royal entourage bumble through Sydney's airspace after flying single engine over water for all that time.

Sorry, I don't get it.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear,

You controllers are just so bloody stupid. Der, wake up!

The point is, ****su, that slack-a**ed controllers, earning $125,000 a year, refused a clearance to a VFR flight at 8,500 feet, out of pure badness. He wasn't even landing at Sydney.

Forget who it was, and forget what he said in the paper. Your mates screwed over an aircraft asking for a legitimate and grantable clearance. It happens EVERY day in Sydney, in case you hadn’t realized. VFR flights get refused into Sydney so often now they don’t even ask anymore. Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, Cairns, Launceston, Hobart, Albury, Rockhampton, Alice Springs, Darwin, Williamtown, East Sale, Moorabin, Townsville, Maroochydore, Tamworth, Bankstown, Mackay, Archerfield, Parafield, Jandakot, Canberra – even poor old Gerry at Camden – know how to issue a clearance – AND separate a VFR aircraft from another aircraft.

Sydney controllers should hang their heads in shame. They are the world’s absolute worst proponents of the art. Shame, shame, shame, on you!!



16 down: (4, 2, 3, 6) Clint is mixed, but she arranged to see the snow end turn – what would make them happy?

:\ :\ :\


Just got your barb, bobster.

Let me see. Where in MATS does it say that an aircraft with 200 people gets priority over an aircraft with 2?

Do you think that a VFR flight doing maybe 200kts is really going to hold up Mr IFR for long? Should I block 3000 feet for 20 minutes? Ever heard of a paper stop level? How long have you been doing air traffic control - 2 minutes? Give me a break. You really are pathetic.

Better go to the sim and do some refresher training.

World’s Worst
I must admit, this is a very insightful analysis of ATC workload, worthy of Winstun at his best.

Now, let’s see. Given that four aircraft per person, per fifteen minutes comes nowhere near being busy (certainly not overloaded), perhaps we should implement a new Sydney staffing plan.

An immediate staff cut to two at a time is in order, allowing each controller to handle 32 aircraft per hour, or eight on frequency at a time, allowing some capacity for unannounced VFR transits. Let’s call it “World’s Worst Practise” to give credit where it’s due. Given that we will need some of the best controllers to do the job, let’s hire both WW and Winnie Churchall for operations on day one.

Extract from Sydney transcript, Day 1

WW: “Well Winnie, we finally got rid of all them pesky controllers. Let’s show them how it’s really done!”
Winnie: “You bet, Worstie!”
WW: “Look, here come some arriving aeroplanes. They look just like the ones on FlightSim2000. This shouldn’t be too hard…….. ABC cleared to land.”
Winnie: “Friggin’ bone, mate, let me have a go……. DEF cleared to land”
WW: “Well, so far, so good, Winnie.”
Winnie: “Hey Worstie, I’ve just thought of something. If we keep handling all these jets at 80 per hour, we’re gonna run out of parking spots for them by lunchtime.”
WW: “Strewth mate, you’re right. Those bludging ATCs who used to work here yesterday must have struck the same thing. I wonder where they put them all?!”
Aircraft: “Worst Tower, Airline 123, requesting airway clearance.”
Winnie: “Friggin’ bone mate, these bustards wanna depart! Won’t that increase the traffic to………. about double what we had when we just counted the arrivals?”
WW: “Um, uh…. now twp time the number you first thought of and carry the 1……I think you’re right Winnie”

Winnie: Anfd all I ever wanted was to become a web page designer, and pretend to be Canadian rather than Australian! Why, oh why did I ever get Flight Sim?!"

The moral of the story: There are lies, dammed lies and statistics. When collated by the “World’s Worst” each should be used with extreme caution.

Nowhere, but it does say that RPT landing SY get priority over GA landing BK. Priorities are published in AIP also.

Worlds Worst, why would ATC follow these proceedured of yours that I quote?

"Now, sure, I could assign 7500 on climb, or 9500 on descent, but my poor old IFR jockey might get real nervous at a VFR level – so maybe, as a caring and considerate controller, I might just pick the nearest available IFR level – maybe, er, let me think, 7,000 for the climber, and, er, um, let me think again, er, 10,000 for the descender."

AIP clearly states that commercial RPT jets have priority over GA aircraft. ENR 1.4-10

What you suggest would put GA VFR aircraft priority over RPT.

You proport to know what should be done, but demonstrate that you don't, this has an effect on you credability.

Your writing demeanor and appararent arrogance suggests to me that you have another agenda to your posts, rather than just to ask why did this happen?

Your post's is misguided, you should be whingeing to the people who make the laws, not those who work within them.

ah, 4711, you smell so sweet - I used to give 4711 eau de cologne to my mother for Xmas - and even she knew how to recognise incompetence amongst controllers.

S-T - guess the first 4 letters of your callsign truely identify you - I don't actually need the O2 to which you so eruditely refer. I live on the methane that eminates from the rear ends on slack-a**ed Sydney controllers who don't give a s**t. New colostomy bag required!

Down draught - are you so ignorant and insensitive that you would just refuse a clearance to a VFR aircraft because a non-legal document like AIP says RPT have priority.

That's just hogwash. Check again, windy feathers. I am NOT saying give RPT priotity over VFR - I AM saying a VFR coming in off the ocean - that's from the east to you Sydney people - which will cross over a down-wind stream for 34, or under a departure stream from 16, is a REAL easy manage.

You guys at Sydney haven't a clue about air traffic control.

It's an over-statement of your ability to say that you even recognised Dick's callsign.

Come into the 19th century, guys - give a VFR a chance. They won't bite! They talk, therefore they are!!!



Oh, pppppsssss......who wrote the AIP anyway.... it wouldn't happen to have been air traffic controllers from AirNOservices Australia.

What legal head of power does the AIP have anyway. There is ABSOLUTELY no legal head of power for your rediculous priority system. None at all.

Dick - try them on that and you are ABSOLUTELY sure to win - and they are scared sh**less that someone will twig. There is NO legal authority for the priority system in MATS. NONE!

World's Worst

First, I'm not ATC.

Next Q. With so few track miles from Sydney to Bankstown, I wonder what DS's descent point was? Or was DS going to do a crash dive. If so does a C208 have dive brakes? I can see the bleeding ears now.

Finally, I still think some 200 people have more rights than 2. Its called sense of proportion.

No-one has ever stated that clearance for VFR flights will NEVER be available, WW - it just happens that at the time our (self proclaimed) intrepid adventurer asked for it, it wasn't!

When separation standards are already at their minimum between aircraft, and each sector has his/her maximum number of traffic - and this is something that is enforced worldwide - it is simply NOT (SAFELY) POSSIBLE to squeeze another aircraft in, regardless of size.

Out of "pure badness".

Surely the multi, multi MILLIONAIRE, flying one of his SEVERAL leisure aircraft, making this long, overwater flight - at UNNECESSARY GREAT RISK to his family - in a single engined aircraft, and with his in depth knowledge of aviation matters, is aware that a PRIVATE VFR category carries the lowest priority.

If SAFETY really was an issue with him, why did he expose his family to it in the first instance, assuming he is in possession of his full mental faculties?
Have you ever heard of an aircraft with 200 people being held, awaiting onward clearance?
Have all day, every day of the year, at just about every major airport around the world, WW.

Welcome to the 21st century!
Venture outside of that little POND that you're swimming in, and have a look at what's going on in the OCEANS around you.
YOU are not the ONLY one in the sky.:uhoh:

Ah, me old mate Bobster.

Not an ATC. How hard it must be to exist on less than $100,000 a year. How do you cope? Guess you must drink , dare I say, Jacob's Creek! How ghastly.

One must learn to disassociate oneself from the poor..

Sense of proportion? Oh, look, there's a 747 about to pass close to an A340 - oh my god, 600 people in danger - turn left immediately - oh, shock horror, another 600 people at risk - give me a break.

They're returns on a screen, for god's sake. Who cares how many people on board. If you're worried - don't become a controller!

Ah my old mate Kaptin M.

So, a Sydney controller was REEEEAAAALLLLY busy. Better recant what I said.

Should have known he/she actually had ...wait for it.. 5 aircraft on frequency!

Stop touching the old fella and pay attention.

Forget who was at the end of the microphone.

An aircraft asked an underworked, overpaid controller for a clearance and was pointblank refused.

YOU are paid to provide a service - NOT to DISCRIMINATE.

You failed - live with it.

"They're returns on a screen, for god's sake. Who cares how many people on board"

Looks like we've got a live one here!!
I hope for EVERYONES' sake that you are in NO way involved in ANY aspect of aviation, with that sort of comment, World's Worst!! :mad:
You have just lost ALL credibility. :ok:

Re: WW
 

This little one's not worth the effort...

Ahh, Kaptin M.

A true patriot!

My gosh - that's Qantas xxx, 747, must have at leat 400 precious Australians aboard. Bugger the fact that it's just a radar target - I'm really concerned that it might run into something.

Oh, no! Look, another NOT target - could be 300 lives in danger.

Oh, no! I've got anther two aircraft on frequency. Just think, 1200 people's lives in these little hands. Hope I don't scew it up!

How could I live with myself.

Should have cleared a few VFR aircraft - at least if THEY crashed I'd only kill 10 people!

You Sydney controller's are so pathetic.

Get real and provide the service you get paid $125,000 to do.

World's Worst,

You said:
MATS has nothing whatever to do with the original action.

The legal relationship between pilots and controllers under CAR 100 (4) is that "the pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for compliance with air traffic control clearances and air traffic control instructions".

The liability of ATC is determined in accordance with the principles of common law in particular, negligence and the standard is measured by what a reasonable person of ordinary prudence would do in the circumstances.

Negligence comprises three elements:

1. the existence of a duty of care owed to the plaintiff by the defendant;
2. a breach of that duty; and
3. damages to the person resulting from the breach, provided that there is some 'relation' or 'proximity' between the parties.

A plaintiff will fail in the action unless damage of a kind recognised by law is proved and it must be caused by the act or omission complained of.

The duty of care owed by controllers is "to take reasonable care to give all such instructions and advice as may be necessary to promote the safety of aircraft within their area of responsibility" (Shawcross and Beaumont, 1977).

This duty of care arises because the ‘proximity’ of controllers and pilots is determined by the degree of reliance existing in the relationship. That is, pilots are reliant upon the acts, advice or information provided by controllers, however the pilot is still legally responsible for the safety of the aircraft and its passengers. The controller is legally responsible for the safety of the air traffic control instructions." (Hopkin 1995:28)

Airservices Australia is vicariously liable for any negligent act or omission on the part of a controller because legislation prohibits an employee being joined as a co-defendant or from being sued by a plaintiff.

The duties and responsibilities of an air traffic controller are detailed in the Manual of Air Traffic Services.

Now, get back in your box!

A

Seems I forgot forum rule 1

Don't feed the trolls!

Number of VFR clearance requests in SY TMA for May, 2004: 592

Number of VFR clearances delayed in excess of five minutes awaiting clearance in SY TMA for May, 2004: 2

Number of VFR clearances refused in SY TMA for May, 2004: 3



I think you made your point that deleted is unnecessary W

So, let's get this right, only three VFR clearances refused out of 592 for that month.

Wow, it's embarrassing when you've been shooting your mouth off, then the facts emerge and make you look totally stupid and petulant.

Better go register again under yet another name, WW.:hmm:

The best part is Dick was one of them.

Oh dear, Atlas Shrugged,

You have been busy. Looks like you studied a little law. Too bad it has no relevance.

See if you can find anywhere in those fancy law books where it says that the priorities written in MATS have any head of power. I think you’ll find the only lawful priorities are in Sydney noise sharing legislation.

Nice try, anyway.

Oh, and I’m really impressed with your quote about complying with ATC instructions. Isn’t this putting the cart before the horse. Having the ability to be big brother doesn’t mean you should use it as an excuse for not providing a service when you can.

Wake up.


Now, me old mate ****su,

Show me any controller in Sydney that earns $62,500 a year, other than maybe some wet behind the ears fresh out of college kid.

Average base salary in Sydney must be around $110,000, and another $30k in O/T and E/D. And one Team Leader for every two controllers – so add T/L allowance. And I guess everyone in Sydney does OJTI. And then there’s the nice little rostered E/D scams you’ve been running for years.

And Statman.

Love the stats – I just love the stats.

Let’s see:

Number of VFR clearance requests in SY TMA for May, 2004: 592

Number of VFR clearances delayed in excess of five minutes awaiting clearance in SY TMA for May, 2004: 2

Number of VFR clearances refused in SY TMA for May, 2004: 3

But wait – you forgot the most important one: Number of VFR flights too scared to even ask for a VFR clearance, in case they wake up with a horse’s head – thousands.

And Ferris, maaaaate!

3 VFR clearances refused. How many IFR clearances refused. Bet the answer is, wait for it, getting close, just another second. I was right - none!

You guys are pathetic.

Sydney Approach. The world’s worst air traffic controllers.

"But wait – you forgot the most important one: Number of VFR flights too scared to even ask for a VFR clearance, in case they wake up with a horse’s head – thousands."

Too scared !?!?!?!?!?!?! scared of what ??

Too scared perhaps, because they really don't know what they are doing, where they are, or how to put together a request with approximately correct phraseology !:ugh:

I'm pretty sure this guy must have failed ATC at one time or another. Bitter and twisted, champ?

Ah, Slice,

Nice try. Refuse a clearance because the poor guy’s nervous. What happened to the SERVICE in Airservices Australia.

“Sorry mate, since you got one word wrong in the call, can’t give you a clearance – return to Bankstown, study a little harder, and come back in a few weeks”. Or “what do you mean you’re over the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Is that the Milson’s Point Side, or Circular Quay side? So, really you’re unsure of position. Sorry mate, due inability to navigate, clearance not available”.

Now, where was I:

28 across (6,8) Apples without your Chairman. Add it to shaken orchy on Wednesday but don’t get married. Mixed together, you get the world’s worst controllers.

Oh, nearly forgot you, Hempy.

No, I didn’t actually fail as a controller, though I know a few who should’ve. I actually work closer to you than you think. Just never felt like playing before.

Look behind you!

With the demise of NAS, the same old airspace problems are back. Despite the concerns that killed it, NAS had its good points and access by VFR aircraft over busy radar airspace was one of them. One of my concerns about Australian airspace as it stands is that we are progressing inexorably towards airspace that isolates RPT from all other traffic. Understandably, this would be ideal for the ATC services and the airline pilots, but it will be a huge log across the path of charter, private flying and other operations. If we continue on this path, we may as well just make Class C restricted airspace. By saying this, I mean that while some aircraft maybe refused clearance, many others are radar vectored to the extent that it is not worth the bother of asking for clearance in the first place.

Some people may think differently, but I don’t believe VFR aircraft should be procedurally locked out of certain areas of the country on the basis that they can’t compete with the presence and finances of the big boys; might get in their way of the jets; or controllers can’t handle the additional workload and the VFR pilot is the easiest one to bump off the list or vector out of the way.

The argument to fix the situation shouldn’t degenerate to finger pointing between controllers, airline pilots, biscuit makers and VFR backers. The discussion should be directed towards improvements. VFR aircraft need to be better accommodated over these populated areas.

Like the thinking behind the issuance of pilot licences, many people appear to believe airspace access is a privilege...I don’t! I believe both license issuance and airspace access are rights available to me as a citizen. (There’s a big difference between right and privelege.) If I meet certain criteria and obey the necessary rules and responsibilities, then there should be no reason why I cannot be allowed to utilize those rights. To be effectively locked out of a big swath of airspace because I happen to be VFR, or have a flight path different to those of the airlines, or might not be quite correct with my phraseology is just not fair. It is my airspace too and it appears the only way I might be able to utilize that airspace in the future is to purchase a ticket with an airline.

So where are the shortfalls such that ATC have difficulty handling VFR traffic? Flight plans, staffing levels, processes, TAAATS, noise sharing flight paths, airspace procedures, all of the above???? Submitting a flight plan certainly helps, but this is not always possible for VFR aircraft. VFR flying by its nature is fun and flexible. It seems to me that flight planning lodgment procedures are significantly more complicated than they should be for VFR aircraft. Would a separate ATC freq from the sector controller help where VFR pilots can call to have radtags allocated? Perhaps a form of flight following would help. I realize that additional costs might be involved, but it is not acceptable either that controllers continue to blow off VFR traffic because it is seen as a continual nuisance to RPT jets or is seen as the lowest rung on the ladder; either actual or perceived. Neither is it acceptable for people to argue that VFR pilots don’t pay and AsA needs to look after its paying customers. AsA is a guardian of a national resource. Historically, controlled airspace was implemented solely for IFR aircraft traffic services. AsA CTA services are provided for the benefit of IFR aircraft. This should not be an excuse to exclude or hinder access to VFR traffic.

I’m not blaming controllers, airline pilots or anyone in particular. Procedures need to be updated to include VFR traffic as much as safely possible. Some exclusion on safety grounds is acceptable, but people need to keep in mind that the inclusion of VFR traffic is an important and necessary part of any future change. It will be to the benefit of everyone in aviation. The USA does it well. It has its issues still, but it does provide a model towards which Australia can look.

Lowdown has hit the nail on the head. The airspace is a national assett, and as such should not be run as a quasi business enterprise in a vain hope of getting a few dollars and in the process shafting all the low volume users.
The real issue is about getting Airservices back to being a service provider for everyone - revenue neutral.

No, the 'airspace' should not be run as a business. I have little problem with AsA running its activities as a business, provided they maintain a distinction between their services, the customers who require those services and the airspace in general and its access. Many people both within and outside AsA seem to get the boundaries between these items confuddled.

Edited in response to Tower of Terror.

While this business culture for essential service provision continues those who spend a dollar will always be listened to far more than those who spend 1 cent!! -

"Thats business son nothin' personal!"

Conspiracy theory #1

On the VOR versus dick smith forum dick accused the VOR representative of actually being a former Head ATC. In fact World's Worst is actually dick smith continuing to push his failed arguement in another guise. The pseudonym World's Worst is a reflection of the writers sad view of his own inadequacies - but why inflict them on the rest of us by continuing to present perceptions as facts, probably solicited from some disgruntled loser. Perhaps a visit to SY ATC would assist in clarifying some of your misconceptions. I believe that they welcome visitors - it probably means that they have nothing to hide.

Not a bad theory, but to Dick's credit he's more literate than this bloke

We do not believe it is Mr Smith.

Yeah, the way you're carrying on, you've got to be one of the cleaners!

Out of interest exactly what aircraft type was he in? a 208 or a 406?

Perhaps Worlds Worst could explain to us how much money has been saved since the November with this present system. Could he also explain why AirServices put a temporary radar in Launceston, but not in Alice Springs.

Good point Dog,

Funny thing about Launceston, they put in a temporary radar, but they don't put a screen in the tower :confused:

Or the Tea lady ....