Spin To Make You Dizzy
 

Folks,

Have a look at Albo's press release: AA346/2010 of 20 May, and in particular the "numbers", as part of the announcement of fire services (RFFS) for the Sunshine Coast airport

And I quote: For 2009 year standing alone, 8,181 calls for assistance, 515 emergencies, and 23 lives saved ---- all in the small number of airports that actually have RFFS services provided by AA.

Almost enough to scare you off flying, except for one thing, and that is that no more than a handful actually involved operation of aircraft directly, and I would guess that they would almost be all calls to standby.

As for the "23 lives saved" ???? Probably somebody collapsed in a terminal and revived. What wonderful spin.

Everybody should re-read the (then) BTRE analysis of the "cost of safety regulation" some years ago, which showed that on-airport RFFS was classic economic waste, and this resulted (with several anomalies) in the removal of all RFFS, except for the capital city primary airports, because of the ICAO requirements for "international" airports.

It's very heavily gilding the lilly to suggests that being "first responders" to events that are normally handled by Ambulance or other paramedics justifies full RFFS services. It is just costing airlines, and therefor airline passengers, a significant "per ticket" cost, particularly at smaller airports. With the obvious flow-on for employment

This is the sort of thing that is eating away at the viability of air services, particularly in the regions.

The BTRE report is as relevant today, as it was when it was first presented, and the cost impost for unjustified services weighs even more heavily on the industry today, than it did then.

Tootle pip!!

Ahhh the second seque argument already...RFFS costs and Tower Charges.

You need to get away from the bad anomaly, Mr Sled. He is turning you into a clone.:}

The ICAO wording is 'all airports'. 'International' is Australian spin to reduce costs.

Hi Sled

Considering the ARFF in Cairns just saved Cobham over a million dollars in infrastructure last night, maybe they are worth it after all.

Obviously spoken by a person who has no idea at all what the ARFF actually does.:=

Given AsA RFFS is at only 20 airports, I'm not sure if aviation in "the regions" are suffering because of this. Also, my look at the AsA website seems to indicate to me that only bigger aircraft pay. :confused:

So when Bloggs here, through no fault of his own, ends up in a burning wreck of a B717 with 115 passengers and four CC on board, at the end of the runway at Newman, Paraburdoo or Port Hedland, what response can the QANTAS fare paying passengers expect?

Likewise at Learmonth, Albany etc for Skywest.

Here is a map I prepared earlier.

This is a bad joke. WHEN it goes wrong, watch those who make these decisions run quickly and point their fingers.:=

Aircraft obviously do not catch fire in Australia. Why else would there be no requirement for a nominated EDTO/ETOPS alternate aerodrome to have an ARFF service domestically, but you have to have ARFF Cat 4 internationally? :ooh:

Here is a spin that made me dizzy...........

YouTube - Spinning F4u Corsair.MVN_0001.wmv :cool:


Heaps dizzy Bro.......:{

If thats where Launceston is where the hell have i been landing? :hmm:

Is Melbourne in flood?

Av8tr,
Did the Friday arvo barbie get out of hand at the hanger? Do tell..

By any measure the risk (ie likelihood and consequence) is much higher at locations where there are large aircraft, high numbers of movements and costly infrastructure.

While I often enjoy LeadSled's perspective, on this occasion may his viewpoint crash and burn (without any assistance from people doing a dangerous job in a professional manner).

Leadsled, a rerun of that nineties argument?

Where are you leading with this?

Are you suggesting that "Albo" is buttering the public up for a union holiday employment situation by expanding RFFS at Maroochy? Ask Smith to expand on what he is urging you to argue for.

What is eating away at regionals is the scarcity of infrastructure and what infrastructure remaining is under threat of "Commercial Development" pressure.

To add further....

Ask yourself when regional services started to decline...and then ask yourself, What policy change occured at the same time? And there is your answer....hints "User Pays" "Affordable Safety" Competition policy and that "S" word.

RFFS was a very small part that got chucked in the spotlight because of "Cost Recovery" How did Smith argue it...more expensive to supply RFFS at Broome than at Kingsford Smith or words to that effect.

Quite clever how a socialist government managed to remove a service and charge the occupents higher rent for less service and still take a huge dividend out of it.

I'll give you the S word OZ,

Words to the effect that:

• Controllers have to concentrate on Class C far from the aerodrome, when the collision risk is greatest in the vicinity of the runways - they've proved they can do both for years.
• You can't have Class C without radar - particularly nice spin, which ignores the fact, totally, that there is no such requirement.
• The chances of a collision between a VFR and IFR are 'vanishingly small' in Class E - what I am actually saying is that I advocate a system based on chance.
• The US is world's best practice - let's just ignore the fact that prangs between IFR passenger carrying operations and VFR traffic have occurred in that system, but that they haven't in our 'dysfunctional' system.
• It's the best system in the world because they handle 10 times the traffic that we do - with 10 times the controllers.

Any more?:rolleyes:

Actually, I was refering to "Subsidy":E