Another **** Whinge Mk 2
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Caloundra, QLD, Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another **** Whinge Mk 2
I agree with the comments on the previous thread and with Woomera.
If some ******** is making illegal and dangerous transmissions on the area frquency in the BK LOE he/she SHOULD be reported ASAP to the appropriate authority!
Namely: Australian Communications Authority in your nearest capital city. In this case Sydney on 92454000, Fax 92454099.
Enough is enough! <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
If some ******** is making illegal and dangerous transmissions on the area frquency in the BK LOE he/she SHOULD be reported ASAP to the appropriate authority!
Namely: Australian Communications Authority in your nearest capital city. In this case Sydney on 92454000, Fax 92454099.
Enough is enough! <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right on Zarg.
I remember back around 1990 or 91 I was in the YSBK training area with a student. Bloggs made a radio call in response to a potential conflicting A/C. A certain Enthusiastic Amateur attempted to lambast Bloggs on 121.1 for all and sundry to hear.
A few choice words from the instructor were all that was required to get the Enthusiastic Amateur to crawl back under his rock.
Said offender actually needs to get some more practice with his radio, judging by some of his recent apalling procedures in CTA which I've witnessed.
I remember back around 1990 or 91 I was in the YSBK training area with a student. Bloggs made a radio call in response to a potential conflicting A/C. A certain Enthusiastic Amateur attempted to lambast Bloggs on 121.1 for all and sundry to hear.
A few choice words from the instructor were all that was required to get the Enthusiastic Amateur to crawl back under his rock.
Said offender actually needs to get some more practice with his radio, judging by some of his recent apalling procedures in CTA which I've witnessed.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A pothole on the information superhighway
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree that these incidents should be reported to the ACA, or at least submit an ASIR or CAIR (preferably both ie ACA & report).
No-one carries a tape recorder around, but supplying some evidence can't hurt. If it happens on an Airservices frequency then the date & time will be enough to quickly track it down. In fact, if it has happened on one of theirs I'm surprised that they haven't already reported the problem, but in any case if anyone can recall a specific day & rough time within the last 30 days then by all means submit a report because the data will still be held.
No-one carries a tape recorder around, but supplying some evidence can't hurt. If it happens on an Airservices frequency then the date & time will be enough to quickly track it down. In fact, if it has happened on one of theirs I'm surprised that they haven't already reported the problem, but in any case if anyone can recall a specific day & rough time within the last 30 days then by all means submit a report because the data will still be held.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with everything Woomera posted to the previous thread. If someone is making unlawful calls, report it to CASA and ACA.
Remember, Dick Smith is a person with considerable resources, a very competent legal team, and a well deserved reputation that is an intergal part of his business operations. He also has the right to protect his reputation and a right to seek damages from those that damage his reputation. Given the importance of his reputation to his business interest, any claim he might make for damages might be considerable. Be very careful.
Remember, Dick Smith is a person with considerable resources, a very competent legal team, and a well deserved reputation that is an intergal part of his business operations. He also has the right to protect his reputation and a right to seek damages from those that damage his reputation. Given the importance of his reputation to his business interest, any claim he might make for damages might be considerable. Be very careful.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: village
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I to agree ,It ****s me no end when on CTAFs or the like trying to get some required calls out to sort out conflicting traffic and Jim is telling Bill about his weekend.
Could any one shed some light on what these radio calls contained and were thay were .
Could any one shed some light on what these radio calls contained and were thay were .
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not sure where the AsA VHF transmitters/receivers are for 124.55 however, unless they are close they will likely not receive a signal from a ground station unless its close, and therefore not be recorded.
If you get non-operational crap on freq's perhaps a mobile phone call at the time to the SY STAC, or if busy, CASA, describing what was said etc, at least forms a record that can then be acted on.
<img src="wink.gif" border="0"> Give him enough rope, he'll hang himself
If you get non-operational crap on freq's perhaps a mobile phone call at the time to the SY STAC, or if busy, CASA, describing what was said etc, at least forms a record that can then be acted on.
<img src="wink.gif" border="0"> Give him enough rope, he'll hang himself
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: The Shire
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The majority of these illegal broadcasts are by the same person. A familiar sounding voice to most. BUT! There have been others, perhaps just instructors in the training area, who have made comments such as "why don't you just SHUT UP", usually after a lengthy report with estimates made up during the tx with many ums and ahhs.
To answer the questions above, the location of the most rogue broadcasts is getting received 5x5 by asa's receiver, and duly recorded and archived for 30 days. A date/time & frequency is all that is needed. Perhaps ask Sydney Radar if they were receiving the transmission.
To answer the questions above, the location of the most rogue broadcasts is getting received 5x5 by asa's receiver, and duly recorded and archived for 30 days. A date/time & frequency is all that is needed. Perhaps ask Sydney Radar if they were receiving the transmission.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This sounds like QF on 121.5 over mainland Oz. They use it as their personal chat frequency, and any request to desist meets with hostility.
Oh well, they are the Gods after all.
[ 19 January 2002: Message edited by: Kaptin_X ]</p>
Oh well, they are the Gods after all.
[ 19 January 2002: Message edited by: Kaptin_X ]</p>
Could someone please point me to the evidence that proves these calls are being made by DS, and then point me to the provision that says he's not allowed to make them?
Nunc est bibendum
X, the usual crap from someone who normally has something half decent to say.
What a croc. Any of our 'chatting' these days is done on 123.45.
At least I didn't dissappoint with meeting your inane comments on PPRUNE with 'hostility'! <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
[ 20 January 2002: Message edited by: Keg ]</p>
What a croc. Any of our 'chatting' these days is done on 123.45.
At least I didn't dissappoint with meeting your inane comments on PPRUNE with 'hostility'! <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
[ 20 January 2002: Message edited by: Keg ]</p>
Well Hugh, if your voice identification skills are as accurate as you say they are, we might be able to prove who it is.
But nobody's yet pointed me in the direction of the rule he's allegedly breaking.
But nobody's yet pointed me in the direction of the rule he's allegedly breaking.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day Creampuff,
Well I can see where you are coming from because there certainly appears to be no specific area in CARs prohibiting such practice. Specifically I have read through Part 8 where only systems "installed" is referred to rather than portable radios. I suppose when the legislation was drafted they didn't expect someone who would be licenced to operate a radio system for use in, or in connection with, aircraft to be so blatantly irresponsible.
It is worthy to note that I have never been asked for details of my FROL licence to purchase either an aircraft fitted or portable radio. Perhaps the retailers need to tighten up their act a little as well.
Notwithstanding deficiencies within the CARs I would bet a carton of Crownies that there would be certain legislation under the telecommunciations act regarding unauthorised, harrassing or misleading transmissions.
Having just done a bit of a search on the govt legislation web sites. Would TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) ACT 1979 - SECT 107A
Civil remedies—unlawful interception or communication, be appropriate in this instance.
Any legal minds care to comment?
[ 20 January 2002: Message edited by: Islander Jock ]</p>
Well I can see where you are coming from because there certainly appears to be no specific area in CARs prohibiting such practice. Specifically I have read through Part 8 where only systems "installed" is referred to rather than portable radios. I suppose when the legislation was drafted they didn't expect someone who would be licenced to operate a radio system for use in, or in connection with, aircraft to be so blatantly irresponsible.
It is worthy to note that I have never been asked for details of my FROL licence to purchase either an aircraft fitted or portable radio. Perhaps the retailers need to tighten up their act a little as well.
Notwithstanding deficiencies within the CARs I would bet a carton of Crownies that there would be certain legislation under the telecommunciations act regarding unauthorised, harrassing or misleading transmissions.
Having just done a bit of a search on the govt legislation web sites. Would TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) ACT 1979 - SECT 107A
Civil remedies—unlawful interception or communication, be appropriate in this instance.
Any legal minds care to comment?
[ 20 January 2002: Message edited by: Islander Jock ]</p>
IJ: I think that's a pretty safe bet, so I won't risk a 'carton of Crownies' on it.
I will however risk a carton of Crownies on this bet: I'll bet you that if the transmissions are being made by DS, he's obtained expert advice that a court would not construe them as being any of the things you allege they are.
I will however risk a carton of Crownies on this bet: I'll bet you that if the transmissions are being made by DS, he's obtained expert advice that a court would not construe them as being any of the things you allege they are.
Perhaps he is sitting in a helicopter (i.e. using a fitted airband radio)? Thus prosecution would have to set some sort of precedent to charge those people making crap or irrelevant radio calls wouldn't they? CP?
If they did that, said broadcaster would be joined by many in the dock!!
If they did that, said broadcaster would be joined by many in the dock!!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK Dunnudans I advised in the Airspace forum that I had been contacted by Mr Smith in an effort to correct some "innacuracies" in the posts in that thread.
Please find below an email from Mr Smith in regard to the topic of this thread.
[quote] . .I refer to the nasty personal comments on PPRuNe in relation to myself.. .Most of what I read is not factually based, therefore inaccurate, and. .because the comments are submitted anonymously, it is difficult for me to. .know whether they are genuinely held beliefs or simply intended to be. .destructive.
My interest in aviation reform is not for personal benefit. As I stated in. .my book "Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom" (published in December. .1984 - over 17 years ago) when commenting on the need for reform:
"My object is not merely to criticise, but to help and support efforts to. .improve the aviation climate . . . I am grateful to my country and all the. .best it stands for, because it offers a wealth of opportunity in all sorts. .of ways to anyone who uses those opportunities and has a little luck. I. .reckon I owe my country something."
To put it simply, my whole aim is to get Australian aviation moving ahead as. .it should. Every time I fly I see needless cost. I constantly get letters. .from out of work pilots and I would get immense satisfaction from seeing. .them employed.
In reference to one of these issues, here is my answer.
The topic headed "Another Dick Whinge" refers to a "Richard Jones (you know. .who I mean)" making comments and abusing people in the Sydney light aircraft. .lane. This "Richard Jones" obviously refers to me, as later the anonymous. ."Transition Layer" says "So Dick, just shut up and stick to making peanut. .butter, which is bloody terrible by the way!"
The claim refers to a particular Sunday where the radio was clogged for over. .a minute with an altercation about whether calls should be made or not.
I did not make these calls, nor have I made any similar calls. My voice is. .easily identifiable, and if I ever made such comments, a taped version would. .appear that night on the ABC TV news.
No doubt the reason I am accused of making these comments is because I have. .put in writing and, in an open and honest way, have stood by my views on. .this matter. I follow the CASA rules and recommendations. In the case of. .calls in the light aircraft lane, a letter dated 21/2/01 from CASA's General. .Manager Aviation Safety Promotion states:. ."I would like to confirm for you that there are no mandatory position. .broadcast requirements in the lane to or from Bankstown.. .CASA believes that the lateral separation of the routes (to the right) and. .the depiction of the routes on the VTC and, in greater detail, on the Sydney. .Basin Visual Pilots Guide, provides pilots with adequate means to safety. .self separate in the lane.. .Bruce Graham has advised that he has had no representations from industry or. .his Flying Operations Inspectors for a change to the existing requirements.. .This view is shared by CASA's Standards Division.. .I share your concerns about the number of pilots making unnecessary calls in. .the lane, and for that matter, in class G airspace generally. As we review. .our guidance material for pilots operating in the Bankstown area, I will. .again issue advice to pilots on the limitations of over reliance on radio. .arranged separation in the Bankstown lane."
I understand the reason that CASA makes this recommendation is because radio. .alerted see and avoid only adds to safety when the majority of aircraft are. .giving radio calls. Because Sydney Radar 124.55 is also retransmitted on. .125.8, only about 20% of aircraft on the frequency would ever be able to. .make radio calls before the frequency became completely clogged. This means. .that whilst 20% of the aircraft get an advantage from radio alerted see and. .avoid, the other 80% get a severe disadvantage. This is explained in the. .well known NASA study on "Diffusion of Responsibility" which showed that if. .pilots believed they could rely on being given traffic information, they. .tended to concentrate on the notified traffic and scan less for un-notified. .traffic.
I am a strong supporter of radio alerted see and avoid, but only where it is. .fairly available for all aircraft on the frequency - i.e. in an MBZ or CTAF.. .I'm not keen on it where only 20% of pilots can get an advantage to the. .disadvantage of the others.
More importantly, rather than abuse me on this matter, I believe PPRuNe. .participants should direct their comments at CASA, the safety regulator and. .educator for Australia. The fact that I am being personally abused for. .following CASA recommendations is pretty unreasonable in my opinion.
I also note that the leading participant in this disinformation campaign. .operates under the anonymous name "Coastal Route." I wonder if this person. .is aware that I am the one who drove the Victor 1 coastal route against a. .campaign by the late Alan Green of Qantas? He ran a major campaign over a 6. .month period to prevent the lane from coming in. I was responsible for the. .introduction of this lane - explaining that safety would actually be. .improved, not reduced, as Alan Green and people at Qantas claimed. It was a. .classic example of Alan, a commercial pilot, resisting change, even though. .overseas experienced showed that the change was for the better.
I have personally been involved in hundreds of changes in aviation. .regulations, some of which have been resisted violently by a small minority,. .but I note with interest that these changes have not been reversed after I. .left my position of influence. Many, such as our existing "AMATS" airspace,. .are now supported strongly by those who were originally against the change.
In the future I will be commenting on the new airspace proposals.
Dick Smith. .<hr></blockquote>
Mr Smith has indicated a desire to consider becoming a member in order for him to be able to comment directly on matters herein.
When that takes place I will be arranging to confirm his identity if he so wishes, so that there is no doubt about it.
Please find below an email from Mr Smith in regard to the topic of this thread.
[quote] . .I refer to the nasty personal comments on PPRuNe in relation to myself.. .Most of what I read is not factually based, therefore inaccurate, and. .because the comments are submitted anonymously, it is difficult for me to. .know whether they are genuinely held beliefs or simply intended to be. .destructive.
My interest in aviation reform is not for personal benefit. As I stated in. .my book "Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom" (published in December. .1984 - over 17 years ago) when commenting on the need for reform:
"My object is not merely to criticise, but to help and support efforts to. .improve the aviation climate . . . I am grateful to my country and all the. .best it stands for, because it offers a wealth of opportunity in all sorts. .of ways to anyone who uses those opportunities and has a little luck. I. .reckon I owe my country something."
To put it simply, my whole aim is to get Australian aviation moving ahead as. .it should. Every time I fly I see needless cost. I constantly get letters. .from out of work pilots and I would get immense satisfaction from seeing. .them employed.
In reference to one of these issues, here is my answer.
The topic headed "Another Dick Whinge" refers to a "Richard Jones (you know. .who I mean)" making comments and abusing people in the Sydney light aircraft. .lane. This "Richard Jones" obviously refers to me, as later the anonymous. ."Transition Layer" says "So Dick, just shut up and stick to making peanut. .butter, which is bloody terrible by the way!"
The claim refers to a particular Sunday where the radio was clogged for over. .a minute with an altercation about whether calls should be made or not.
I did not make these calls, nor have I made any similar calls. My voice is. .easily identifiable, and if I ever made such comments, a taped version would. .appear that night on the ABC TV news.
No doubt the reason I am accused of making these comments is because I have. .put in writing and, in an open and honest way, have stood by my views on. .this matter. I follow the CASA rules and recommendations. In the case of. .calls in the light aircraft lane, a letter dated 21/2/01 from CASA's General. .Manager Aviation Safety Promotion states:. ."I would like to confirm for you that there are no mandatory position. .broadcast requirements in the lane to or from Bankstown.. .CASA believes that the lateral separation of the routes (to the right) and. .the depiction of the routes on the VTC and, in greater detail, on the Sydney. .Basin Visual Pilots Guide, provides pilots with adequate means to safety. .self separate in the lane.. .Bruce Graham has advised that he has had no representations from industry or. .his Flying Operations Inspectors for a change to the existing requirements.. .This view is shared by CASA's Standards Division.. .I share your concerns about the number of pilots making unnecessary calls in. .the lane, and for that matter, in class G airspace generally. As we review. .our guidance material for pilots operating in the Bankstown area, I will. .again issue advice to pilots on the limitations of over reliance on radio. .arranged separation in the Bankstown lane."
I understand the reason that CASA makes this recommendation is because radio. .alerted see and avoid only adds to safety when the majority of aircraft are. .giving radio calls. Because Sydney Radar 124.55 is also retransmitted on. .125.8, only about 20% of aircraft on the frequency would ever be able to. .make radio calls before the frequency became completely clogged. This means. .that whilst 20% of the aircraft get an advantage from radio alerted see and. .avoid, the other 80% get a severe disadvantage. This is explained in the. .well known NASA study on "Diffusion of Responsibility" which showed that if. .pilots believed they could rely on being given traffic information, they. .tended to concentrate on the notified traffic and scan less for un-notified. .traffic.
I am a strong supporter of radio alerted see and avoid, but only where it is. .fairly available for all aircraft on the frequency - i.e. in an MBZ or CTAF.. .I'm not keen on it where only 20% of pilots can get an advantage to the. .disadvantage of the others.
More importantly, rather than abuse me on this matter, I believe PPRuNe. .participants should direct their comments at CASA, the safety regulator and. .educator for Australia. The fact that I am being personally abused for. .following CASA recommendations is pretty unreasonable in my opinion.
I also note that the leading participant in this disinformation campaign. .operates under the anonymous name "Coastal Route." I wonder if this person. .is aware that I am the one who drove the Victor 1 coastal route against a. .campaign by the late Alan Green of Qantas? He ran a major campaign over a 6. .month period to prevent the lane from coming in. I was responsible for the. .introduction of this lane - explaining that safety would actually be. .improved, not reduced, as Alan Green and people at Qantas claimed. It was a. .classic example of Alan, a commercial pilot, resisting change, even though. .overseas experienced showed that the change was for the better.
I have personally been involved in hundreds of changes in aviation. .regulations, some of which have been resisted violently by a small minority,. .but I note with interest that these changes have not been reversed after I. .left my position of influence. Many, such as our existing "AMATS" airspace,. .are now supported strongly by those who were originally against the change.
In the future I will be commenting on the new airspace proposals.
Dick Smith. .<hr></blockquote>
Mr Smith has indicated a desire to consider becoming a member in order for him to be able to comment directly on matters herein.
When that takes place I will be arranging to confirm his identity if he so wishes, so that there is no doubt about it.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your kind comments Keg. If that is now the case, it must be of recent origin, and if so, I commend QF for stopping the practice, and apologize.
Howzat? Can you reply with hostility to that?
Howzat? Can you reply with hostility to that?
Exactly how sure are you about the identity of the voice you heard, Hugh?
Human visual identification is notoriously and demonstrably unreliable. The MK1 ear is even less reliable, especially when it comes to compressed, reduced-bandwidth, readability-4 avionics audio.
Human visual identification is notoriously and demonstrably unreliable. The MK1 ear is even less reliable, especially when it comes to compressed, reduced-bandwidth, readability-4 avionics audio.