New airspace: Dick Smith
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CaptainMidnight - read 'em (before). Nothing in there to justify the slurs I've been reading. I think that Achilles comments put paid to the suggestion that DS is not interested in consultation / discussion.
Achilles
Personally I prefer to see him provide answers here in public.
In true Donald Rumsfeld style: there are things I know, and I know I know them. When he (DS) gives answers here I know to be wrong then I will buy into it and say so. There are also things I don't know, and when he gives answers to these, I don't know whether he is right or not, so I rely on others here to educate me. There are also things I don't know that I don't know I know, but we won't go into that .....
How do you know that the answers you got were correct?
Personally I prefer to see him provide answers here in public.
In true Donald Rumsfeld style: there are things I know, and I know I know them. When he (DS) gives answers here I know to be wrong then I will buy into it and say so. There are also things I don't know, and when he gives answers to these, I don't know whether he is right or not, so I rely on others here to educate me. There are also things I don't know that I don't know I know, but we won't go into that .....
How do you know that the answers you got were correct?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Dick Smiths web page as quoted above:
NO, we are clearly aware that costs are critical particularly to GA. What concerns me and others is that Costs appear to be the driver of your promotion of the NAS system, who and how will safety be quantified to ensure safety is not compromised? SO, answer the questions posed in relation to the technical aspects of NAS, and those posed about the credibility of the Author of NAS and why it appears set to be forced on industry without consultation or scrutiny !!!
Aussie Andy
I agree that most would have opinions based on various levels of experience gained in Aircrew, ATC etc
Problem is VERY FEW IF ANY HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS NAS!.
Thus the discussion here.
If DS has the answers and NAS is the panacea why are so many questions UNANSWERED!!!!
Show us where he has taken into account the views of stakeholders, and addressed the vast logistical differences between the US and OZ.
Achilles
If a 20 min phone call has addressed your concerns perhaps you might share with us the Wisdom?
I will not be calling him as this discussion needs to be scrutinised by a wide audience not individuals. I suspect that is why you were 1 of 1 to call!.
To credibility in other endeavours:
From NineMsn Small Business transcript above:
Hmmm…
Quite often on PPRuNe there are cargo cult type statements where the participants appear to have no idea that the problem facing Australian aviation at the present time is not safety, but cost.
Aussie Andy
You seem to imagine that it is somehow possible for constituents of this panel to all have no prior opinion (what you term "preconceived views") on the subject - I would suggest that that is unlikely, no matter whether you are appointing former heads of CASA, members of Airservices, owners of airlines, pilots, ATCOs etc. - or even yourself. Its just not a realistic - of course the members of the panel will have background, experience, knowledge and opinions. Why else bother getting together to talk!?
Problem is VERY FEW IF ANY HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS NAS!.
Thus the discussion here.
If DS has the answers and NAS is the panacea why are so many questions UNANSWERED!!!!
Lastly, you go on to say that he does this "to the exclusion of properly considering systems which are better suited to the Austrlian aviation industry in general." What's your evidence to show that DS has excluded other views from his thinking then?
Achilles
If a 20 min phone call has addressed your concerns perhaps you might share with us the Wisdom?
I will not be calling him as this discussion needs to be scrutinised by a wide audience not individuals. I suspect that is why you were 1 of 1 to call!.
To credibility in other endeavours:
From NineMsn Small Business transcript above:
I can't sell the business as such because I've said that the business is going to run to help Australian farmers and it's for this particular ethos.
Northern daily leader
Monday June 10, 2002
Patriotism nothing to be spat at
Page 10 editorial by Gary Ruddick
FAMOUS aviator and businessman Dick Smith has been to Tamworth a number of times and I’ve had the pleasure of meeting him at least twice.
He’s an enthusiastic and friendly guy with seemingly no pretensions and he’s a non-stop talker, but that’s good if you’re a journalist and you’re trying to interview someone.
There is nothing worse than to interview someone who doesn’t want to talk to you… editors are not impressed if you return to the office and mumble something like: “I didn’t get a story, he wouldn’t TALK to me.” (Editor: “Well, you go back and talk to HIM!”)
Not to worry, and back to Dick Smith, who these days could be called Tricky Dicky.
(1) He bagged Deputy Prime Minister and National Party Member for Gwydir John Anderson mercilessly for something like two years and even threatened to come up north to campaign against Anderson for Independent Tony Windsor.
But when the refugees started arriving, all of a sudden Tricky told everyone who would listen that the Government should be supported and John Anderson was a great guy.
(2) Remember all the patriotic brouhaha Tricky came up with when he launched his “Dick Smith Made in Australia” food line a couple of years ago?
He was doing it, he said, so the terrible multinationals would not take over Australia.
Would you believe it, Dick Smith Foods have now been taken over by none other than America’s Sanitarium (Seventh Day Adventist) mob.
… what colour’s a chameleon?
Monday June 10, 2002
Patriotism nothing to be spat at
Page 10 editorial by Gary Ruddick
FAMOUS aviator and businessman Dick Smith has been to Tamworth a number of times and I’ve had the pleasure of meeting him at least twice.
He’s an enthusiastic and friendly guy with seemingly no pretensions and he’s a non-stop talker, but that’s good if you’re a journalist and you’re trying to interview someone.
There is nothing worse than to interview someone who doesn’t want to talk to you… editors are not impressed if you return to the office and mumble something like: “I didn’t get a story, he wouldn’t TALK to me.” (Editor: “Well, you go back and talk to HIM!”)
Not to worry, and back to Dick Smith, who these days could be called Tricky Dicky.
(1) He bagged Deputy Prime Minister and National Party Member for Gwydir John Anderson mercilessly for something like two years and even threatened to come up north to campaign against Anderson for Independent Tony Windsor.
But when the refugees started arriving, all of a sudden Tricky told everyone who would listen that the Government should be supported and John Anderson was a great guy.
(2) Remember all the patriotic brouhaha Tricky came up with when he launched his “Dick Smith Made in Australia” food line a couple of years ago?
He was doing it, he said, so the terrible multinationals would not take over Australia.
Would you believe it, Dick Smith Foods have now been taken over by none other than America’s Sanitarium (Seventh Day Adventist) mob.
… what colour’s a chameleon?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cpt Midnight - How do you know the answers I got were wrong?
All I said was I asked him questions I had concerns about the proposed NAS, relating to the document made public Dec 2001, and I got straight answers.
Now, usually, there is a presumption that people will answer you in an honest manner, so no, I didn't get him to swear on a bible or on the lives of his children.
Capcom,
I reply in an edit cause you got in whilst I was typing. It's about beddy-bye time for me now, so I will get back to you Thursday in more detail. Firstly, don't forget that a wide audience is made up of individuals. Individuals make a difference individually AND as part of a collective. Now, I'm not going to become a defender/apologist for Dick, but frankly, the ''t should all be out in the open'' cry is a poor excuse for ppruners not having the balls to call directly. Then if they want, make it public on here! Otherwise, go thru official channels, make an appointment with and complain to your local MP, or The Minister about what you see as faults in the way the NAS is coming about, and get it changed!
You want to know on a public forum, that's fair enough too, but here is an opportunity to play a part and speak directly to someone who is, whether any or all of us indiviually or collectively like it or not, believe rightly or wrongly, that he is/is not worthy to be, a key player in the proposed NAS.
If you have questions of him, from my experience, he's willing to answer them. He's under no obligation to do it on a public forum, but hey, you might just miss the opportunity to go him over some key issues hand to hand
All I said was I asked him questions I had concerns about the proposed NAS, relating to the document made public Dec 2001, and I got straight answers.
Now, usually, there is a presumption that people will answer you in an honest manner, so no, I didn't get him to swear on a bible or on the lives of his children.
Capcom,
I reply in an edit cause you got in whilst I was typing. It's about beddy-bye time for me now, so I will get back to you Thursday in more detail. Firstly, don't forget that a wide audience is made up of individuals. Individuals make a difference individually AND as part of a collective. Now, I'm not going to become a defender/apologist for Dick, but frankly, the ''t should all be out in the open'' cry is a poor excuse for ppruners not having the balls to call directly. Then if they want, make it public on here! Otherwise, go thru official channels, make an appointment with and complain to your local MP, or The Minister about what you see as faults in the way the NAS is coming about, and get it changed!
You want to know on a public forum, that's fair enough too, but here is an opportunity to play a part and speak directly to someone who is, whether any or all of us indiviually or collectively like it or not, believe rightly or wrongly, that he is/is not worthy to be, a key player in the proposed NAS.
If you have questions of him, from my experience, he's willing to answer them. He's under no obligation to do it on a public forum, but hey, you might just miss the opportunity to go him over some key issues hand to hand
Last edited by Achilles; 18th Jun 2002 at 13:07.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks again Andy...... Shame about Mr Smith, though.........
Mr Smith
The debate is progressing rather well. A number of people have sprung to your support (including myself, on occasion). As you can see from these posts, there are a number of people who would like to see your answers to the questions asked previously. The questions are, by now, becoming rather well known in aviation, journalistic and political circles. Your failure to provide answers is as well known. Equally well known is my refusal to identify myself.
If it would help:
"I, 4711, being of very nearly sound body, hereby relinquish any copyright to the 'six questions' previously put to Mr Smith. I hereby grant to anybody - politician, journalist, aviator, or interested taxpayer - or any group of people - the right to repost the questions, subject to the following conditions:
1) You must provide your real name/s - verifiable by Mr Smith.
2) You must be Australian.
3) The questions must be quoted verbatim"
Now, Mr Smith, hopefully you will be able to respond to someone with a real name.
Any takers?
Aussie Andy
Good to see someone entering into a spirited debate.
The ARG was formed to assess two separate models. I do not believe that the authors of either should have been the arbiters. Simple. Previous knowledge, opinions, experience etc. are always going to be there. Prior knowledge and prior conclusions are different though.
I argue no such thing in relation to his past official posts. He was appointed to do a job, did that job, and was, I assume, paid to do so. What I have said about his past duties is, that as a public servant, he is subject to public scrutiny, whether through fair comment in the media, scrutiny through parliamentary procedures or other means.
My comments, and more particularly my question about any future role are in relation to any ‘offer’ to head the airspace directorate.
I have never commented upon finacial gain from participation on the panel. Maybe we should ask Mr Smith if he was paid. I am pretty sure that he would have done it for nothing though.
I do not for one moment question Mr Smith’s motives. I sincerely believe that he genuinely believes that the NAS proposal is the best solution to Australia’s aviation problems. I have concerns about his methods. The intended outcome here should have been to achieve the best outcome overall, not “what Dick Smith really, really believes is best.”
One again, I agree. The idea that Mr Smith is somehow coveting a job as an airspace director for the salary and company car is patently ridiculous. I assume, from a number of public statements from Mr Smith himself that he remains a man of considerable means who does not have to earn money to support himself. Mr Smith has never knocked back a job as head of any airspace authority. He must have other reasons for taking on these jobs.
Mr Smith, responding to another question from an ‘anonymous’ PPRuNer, did not discount the notion of taking on a role in this directorate. Once again, no problem. The problem would arise if discussions about such a job, or in fact an offer, had already been made. That would be improper.
On the question of whether his “wealth could conceivably be significantly enhanced” by participation in the bureaucratic process, well, I fail to see how his current assets make it any more or less proper to be part of that process. I earn a decent income. If I do something improper, and that leads to me gaining a very small sum of money, it is no defence to say that it really made no difference to my overall wealth. If Mr Smith stands to gain finacially, even if it is only a few hundred thousand dollars, then a conflict of interest may arise. It is up to public officials to ensure that their decisions are not affected by any conflicts of interest.
He ‘implemented’ the system by chairing the panel which decided between two models. (Yes, I am aware that the Minister makes the ultimate decision as to whether to accept the panel’s recommendation.) Mr Smith did this, knowing full well that one of the models was one he had written himself, that he believed in passionately (I think Mr Smith would agree to being ‘passionate’ about NAS) and had spent time and resources promoting. Now which one do you think he would vote for?
I do not suggest that it is “unfair” to promote an idea -for any reason. In fact I have put the case to Mr Smith that he should have been a strong advocate of NAS. I suggested that the NAS proposal would have been better served if he had done exactly that. We could all have gone to bed at night, comfortable in the knowledge that someone other than the author also agreed to the proposal’s merits. NAS would have been less controversial and more likely to succeed.
First, I do not say that has done anything "to the exclusion of properly considering systems which are better suited to the Australian aviation industry in general." I said that a potential conflict fo interest arises if this were to be the case. That was the point of the first question I put to Mr Smith. He has not responded.
My only ‘evidence’ is that, before, during and after the time that he was supposedly deciding between two proposals, he was calling LAMP ‘dead in the water’, urging people to support NAS etc. It is precisely for this reason that I asked my first question.
Once again, as you seem to have missed my point before:
Dick Smith = Airspace Advocate = GOOD
Any person = advocate and arbiter = BAD
I would love to air my views. In fact, looking at the comparative costings, safety analysis, staff impact statements and the pros and cons of each proposal so that we can do that is exactly what I wish we could all do.
From the little information which has been made public, I have already aired some views– most of them relatively supportive of NAS.
Once again, because I think you may have missed it:
I do not disagree with NAS. I do think that Mr Smith is entitled to promote his views. I just don’t think that you can be both a player and an umpire.
As to ‘character assassination’, if you feel there is any negative connotation in my asking questions and Mr Smith failing to answer them – then you are entitled to your viewpoint. My first post on this thread in fact decried the personal abuse that started early. These are issues of propriety – not ’character’.
Having called the man a liar, a cheat and a thief –are you now willing to give him your real name?
The debate is progressing rather well. A number of people have sprung to your support (including myself, on occasion). As you can see from these posts, there are a number of people who would like to see your answers to the questions asked previously. The questions are, by now, becoming rather well known in aviation, journalistic and political circles. Your failure to provide answers is as well known. Equally well known is my refusal to identify myself.
If it would help:
"I, 4711, being of very nearly sound body, hereby relinquish any copyright to the 'six questions' previously put to Mr Smith. I hereby grant to anybody - politician, journalist, aviator, or interested taxpayer - or any group of people - the right to repost the questions, subject to the following conditions:
1) You must provide your real name/s - verifiable by Mr Smith.
2) You must be Australian.
3) The questions must be quoted verbatim"
Now, Mr Smith, hopefully you will be able to respond to someone with a real name.
Any takers?
Aussie Andy
Good to see someone entering into a spirited debate.
You seem to imagine that it is somehow possible for constituents of this panel to all have no prior opinion (what you term "preconceived views") on the subject - I would suggest that that is unlikely, no matter whether you are appointing former heads of CASA, members of Airservices, owners of airlines, pilots, ATCOs etc. - or even yourself. Its just not a realistic - of course the members of the panel will have background, experience, knowledge and opinions. Why else bother getting together to talk!?
And I still think you are wrong on the private interest point. You seem to be arguing that because DS a) was in the past in a paid official post and b) might in the future be in some paid official post, that this gives rise to a current conflict -> how do you reckon the guy stands to gain financially by participating on the panel?
My comments, and more particularly my question about any future role are in relation to any ‘offer’ to head the airspace directorate.
I have never commented upon finacial gain from participation on the panel. Maybe we should ask Mr Smith if he was paid. I am pretty sure that he would have done it for nothing though.
I think that people are so cynical that they can't accept that a high profile public figure (i.e tall poppy - gotta be cut down!?) could have a genuine motive.
Listen, this fella has made plenty of money through his successful enterprises - leading to employment for others - and I don't see how his wealth could conceivably be significantly enhanced through participation in this public & bureaucratic process, do you? So that in my view makes a mockery of the suggestion of conflict of (pecuniary) interest.
Mr Smith, responding to another question from an ‘anonymous’ PPRuNer, did not discount the notion of taking on a role in this directorate. Once again, no problem. The problem would arise if discussions about such a job, or in fact an offer, had already been made. That would be improper.
On the question of whether his “wealth could conceivably be significantly enhanced” by participation in the bureaucratic process, well, I fail to see how his current assets make it any more or less proper to be part of that process. I earn a decent income. If I do something improper, and that leads to me gaining a very small sum of money, it is no defence to say that it really made no difference to my overall wealth. If Mr Smith stands to gain finacially, even if it is only a few hundred thousand dollars, then a conflict of interest may arise. It is up to public officials to ensure that their decisions are not affected by any conflicts of interest.
You accuse DS of implementing a system which "suits himself" - how? This is to suggest that to promote an idea that makes sense to you, is to somehow unfairly / selfishly promote an idea to the detriment of others. Again, I don't see the logic - it seems an emotive argument.
I do not suggest that it is “unfair” to promote an idea -for any reason. In fact I have put the case to Mr Smith that he should have been a strong advocate of NAS. I suggested that the NAS proposal would have been better served if he had done exactly that. We could all have gone to bed at night, comfortable in the knowledge that someone other than the author also agreed to the proposal’s merits. NAS would have been less controversial and more likely to succeed.
Lastly, you go on to say that he does this "to the exclusion of properly considering systems which are better suited to the Australian aviation industry in general." What's your evidence to show that DS has excluded other views from his thinking then?
My only ‘evidence’ is that, before, during and after the time that he was supposedly deciding between two proposals, he was calling LAMP ‘dead in the water’, urging people to support NAS etc. It is precisely for this reason that I asked my first question.
Once again, as you seem to have missed my point before:
Dick Smith = Airspace Advocate = GOOD
Any person = advocate and arbiter = BAD
I do despair. If you have views on the proposals, air those - but not this twaddle and character assassination, which is just noise in the debate.
From the little information which has been made public, I have already aired some views– most of them relatively supportive of NAS.
Once again, because I think you may have missed it:
I do not disagree with NAS. I do think that Mr Smith is entitled to promote his views. I just don’t think that you can be both a player and an umpire.
As to ‘character assassination’, if you feel there is any negative connotation in my asking questions and Mr Smith failing to answer them – then you are entitled to your viewpoint. My first post on this thread in fact decried the personal abuse that started early. These are issues of propriety – not ’character’.
Yeah, he must be lying - he's out to steal from us and cheat us... right!?
Last edited by Four Seven Eleven; 18th Jun 2002 at 13:13.
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was not calling him a liar cheat or thief - it was a sarcastic response to the previous post (shoud've been obvious!?). Anyway, my name is Andy Hardy - no shame in that! 
We'll have to agree to disagre for now (plus at this time of day here in London, I should be working!). I am glad though that there is acknowledgement that "conflict of interest", which to me implies unfair financial gain, is not what this is about.
Best to all,
We'll have to agree to disagre for now (plus at this time of day here in London, I should be working!). I am glad though that there is acknowledgement that "conflict of interest", which to me implies unfair financial gain, is not what this is about.
Best to all,
Last edited by Aussie Andy; 18th Jun 2002 at 13:37.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now Now.....
Achilles
Nothing to do with Balls I suspect, and I will not speak for anyone else on this other than to say:
The written word “Black and White” is not generally open to misinterpretation or subsequent denial!.
If you are confident you can reproduce comments made by phone without fear of accusation of error!?!?
You’re a better man than Me Gungadin!!!!
Raise concern through other channels! Already done old bean!!!
Now go to Beddy-Bye’s and dream of your next IFR descent!!
Now, I'm not going to become a defender/apologist for Dick, but frankly, the ''t should all be out in the open'' cry is a poor excuse for ppruners not having the balls to call directly.
The written word “Black and White” is not generally open to misinterpretation or subsequent denial!.
If you are confident you can reproduce comments made by phone without fear of accusation of error!?!?
You’re a better man than Me Gungadin!!!!
Raise concern through other channels! Already done old bean!!!
Now go to Beddy-Bye’s and dream of your next IFR descent!!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D'Oh!!!
Yes, we've heard of sarcasm down here too. Some folks say it can even be used more than once!
This new-fangled irony thing is a real doozy though, isn't it?
May I call you Mr Hardy
Well..... are you willing to repost the questions?
(I am assuming that your username is an indicator of your nationality)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy Hardy answers a question
I had wondered if Aussie Andy was stupid or winding people up. Thanks for clearing that up, Mr. Hardy.
Why is a private interest pecuniary? Why does gain have to be measured in money? I think it would be clear to all that Mr Smith doesn't need to make money out of the airspace thing (he makes enough selling out to, I mean protecting us from, multinationals). You then 'add to the noise' with a personal attack. Hypocrite.
Go on, ask Mr Smith the questions with your mask off, oh defender of free speech. If Mr Smith really has a teflon coat, have him answer the quetions.
Why is a private interest pecuniary? Why does gain have to be measured in money? I think it would be clear to all that Mr Smith doesn't need to make money out of the airspace thing (he makes enough selling out to, I mean protecting us from, multinationals). You then 'add to the noise' with a personal attack. Hypocrite.
Go on, ask Mr Smith the questions with your mask off, oh defender of free speech. If Mr Smith really has a teflon coat, have him answer the quetions.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Misrepresentation
Andy
You said:
Assuming that you are talking about my posts....where is this 'acknowledgement'?
From my last post:
Would it be fair to say that you support and believe in Mr Smith's proposals and methods? If so, why not re-post the questions and let him do what he has stated he would like to do: provide answers to someone who is not anonymous.
You said:
I am glad though that there is acknowledgement that "conflict of interest", which to me implies unfair financial gain, is not what this is about.
From my last post:
If Mr Smith stands to gain financially, even if it is only a few hundred thousand dollars, then a conflict of interest may arise.
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because I think the questions are not appropriate. Besides, if you haven't the courage to do so in your own name, I won't help you out on that one pal. What are you afraid of?
Its like "Kindergarten Cops" in here - I think I may be debating with a 12 yr old, so I'm going to give up.
Have a great day everyone - nice & sunny here in London today: think I'll go fly to get some of this boll*cks out of my system...
Its like "Kindergarten Cops" in here - I think I may be debating with a 12 yr old, so I'm going to give up.
Have a great day everyone - nice & sunny here in London today: think I'll go fly to get some of this boll*cks out of my system...
Last edited by Aussie Andy; 19th Jun 2002 at 06:22.
Achilles
I'm not saying the answers he gave you were one way or the other. What I am saying is that you need to bear in mind that what you were told may not be correct, because as we have seen here, some of his answers do not add up.
Notwithstanding that, answering questions by individual pilots by telephone does not constitute Industry consultation. As you may be aware, RAPAC (Regional Airspace Users Advisory Commitee) is a group of representatives of the airlines at all levels, all the various groups in GA, gliders, parachuting etc. along with Airservices, CASA and DoD. There is a separate RAPAC in each region, and they are effectively the sole representative industry forum.
Irrespective of the merits or otherwise of the proposal, the galling aspects are the absence of Industry consultation, and the process by which it was submitted and subsequent endorsed by it's own creator.
I'm not saying the answers he gave you were one way or the other. What I am saying is that you need to bear in mind that what you were told may not be correct, because as we have seen here, some of his answers do not add up.
Notwithstanding that, answering questions by individual pilots by telephone does not constitute Industry consultation. As you may be aware, RAPAC (Regional Airspace Users Advisory Commitee) is a group of representatives of the airlines at all levels, all the various groups in GA, gliders, parachuting etc. along with Airservices, CASA and DoD. There is a separate RAPAC in each region, and they are effectively the sole representative industry forum.
- RAPAC were not consulted at any stage by the proponent regarding NAS. They were sent a copy of the NAS document by the Minister's office three weeks before the cutoff date for comment, just prior to the Christmas/New Year break (well timed)
- in the majority of cases the RAPAC reps only received copies of the document in Feb/March this year.
- All regional minutes record RAPAC's dissatisfaction with the lack of consultation, and that assessment was difficult anyway because the proposal lacked detail, whereas LAMP had progressed close to the implementation stage (regional workshops had been held to address local issues including charting workshops etc.)
- RAPAC was not consulted before the Minister announced that NAS was the "preferred" model - they just found out by Ministerial press release and/or newspapers
- still no-one has provided them with a briefing, any information or explanatory material regarding NAS - the only "detail" is coming out here
- the NAS document was only available initially in limited numbers as a hard copy, and then in late January an electronic copy was made available, but only on somone's private website (along with their wedding photos, which some would say were more interesting)
Irrespective of the merits or otherwise of the proposal, the galling aspects are the absence of Industry consultation, and the process by which it was submitted and subsequent endorsed by it's own creator.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plenty of valid points in this discussion...
Capt Midnight et al,
Plenty of valid points made, none of which I dispute.
All I said was, I called Dick, got some clarification about content in the document, some of which I had misunderstood or missed, that's all.
I make no premise that the process has been correct, transparent or consultative enough, nor that one conversation with a pilot constitutes any of this.
As a pilot, I operate 20 - 30 sectors a week, night and day, good weather and bad weather, in a mixture of Class G (IFR & VFR), CTA in major terminal areas, Class E, MBZ and CTAF's, in and out of radar coverage. So far, I haven't had any problems doing so, and the controllers don't seem to have a problem with me either, even on the ODD occasions when I upgrade from VFR to IFR mid route. Like Chimbu Chuck said earlier, if it's not broken, don't fix it. I don't necessarily believe that the changes proposed will necessarily bring any huge benefit (unless the radar system is upgraded to increase coverage especially at lower levels) except the alleged cost savings, none of which I have seen any figures on or proof that they will transpire (or have I missed them?). If previous costings and forecasts provided by the current federal government are anything to go by, I would be extremely surprised to see the savings actually transpire (remember the $1.5billion surplus the GST was gonna provide????)
Capcom,
In hindsight, accusing ppruners of not having the cajones to call him was impolite, inappropriate and incorrect and I retract that assumption.
However, I repeat, the offer is there for people concerned with the NAS to give him a call. It may (or may not) be an opportunity to get somethings clarified, get your point across or open his eyes to something, so take the opportunity and have a go.
Finally, if 1/2 the issues regarding the implementaion are true, then the minister and the government should be held accountable for a lack of correct due process and should answer questions regarding these definciencies in Parliament, hence contact with a Local Member or Shadow Minister should be a priority.
Now, back to that rest day.......
Plenty of valid points made, none of which I dispute.
All I said was, I called Dick, got some clarification about content in the document, some of which I had misunderstood or missed, that's all.
I make no premise that the process has been correct, transparent or consultative enough, nor that one conversation with a pilot constitutes any of this.
As a pilot, I operate 20 - 30 sectors a week, night and day, good weather and bad weather, in a mixture of Class G (IFR & VFR), CTA in major terminal areas, Class E, MBZ and CTAF's, in and out of radar coverage. So far, I haven't had any problems doing so, and the controllers don't seem to have a problem with me either, even on the ODD occasions when I upgrade from VFR to IFR mid route. Like Chimbu Chuck said earlier, if it's not broken, don't fix it. I don't necessarily believe that the changes proposed will necessarily bring any huge benefit (unless the radar system is upgraded to increase coverage especially at lower levels) except the alleged cost savings, none of which I have seen any figures on or proof that they will transpire (or have I missed them?). If previous costings and forecasts provided by the current federal government are anything to go by, I would be extremely surprised to see the savings actually transpire (remember the $1.5billion surplus the GST was gonna provide????)
Capcom,
In hindsight, accusing ppruners of not having the cajones to call him was impolite, inappropriate and incorrect and I retract that assumption.
However, I repeat, the offer is there for people concerned with the NAS to give him a call. It may (or may not) be an opportunity to get somethings clarified, get your point across or open his eyes to something, so take the opportunity and have a go.
Finally, if 1/2 the issues regarding the implementaion are true, then the minister and the government should be held accountable for a lack of correct due process and should answer questions regarding these definciencies in Parliament, hence contact with a Local Member or Shadow Minister should be a priority.
Now, back to that rest day.......
Last edited by Achilles; 20th Jun 2002 at 01:52.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point Achilles regarding due process. A lot of the discussion has focussed on Dick - perhaps the real issue is how he came to have this role on the ARG in the first place. There seems to be either a total ignorance of due process or it has been ridden over roughshod for some reason - the apparent sidelining of RAPAC being a good case in point.
Can't blame Dick for taking advantage of the opportunity as I am sure he genuinely wants to do what he feels is best (and for all I know NAS may be be the best thing since sliced bread), but this seems about as appropriate as an airline, in trying to choose between B777 or A330, appointing the CEO of Boeing in charge of the selection committee...
Can't blame Dick for taking advantage of the opportunity as I am sure he genuinely wants to do what he feels is best (and for all I know NAS may be be the best thing since sliced bread), but this seems about as appropriate as an airline, in trying to choose between B777 or A330, appointing the CEO of Boeing in charge of the selection committee...
Capcom, I did not introduce, or support the introduction of user pays. User pays was introduced by Labor in 1988. My position has always been the same. That is, if we are to have user pays we must ensure that we remove every unnecessary cost if we are going to have a viable aviation industry. That is what I have been concentrating on with some success in the last 10 years. There is a list of over 30 substantial items where I have been involved with reform which has removed cost. Most of these changes have been in for many years and have not been reversed or caused any safety problems.
For example, Qantas no longer has to do a complete new re-certification with modifications for a new aircraft. Qantas can accept the certification performed by the FAA. I understand the savings were something like $1 million per model.
In relation to the claim that an aircraft has to be on 2 frequencies in a CTAF, I will attempt to explain - seeing that you will not phone me. If Dubbo was to be Class E airspace, any IFR operators performing an instrument approach to Dubbo would remain on the ATC frequency when in IMC. If VMC existed, the pilot would change to the CTAF frequency when within 10 miles of the aerodrome. When in IMC there is no need to be on the CTAF frequency as VFR aircraft cannot fly in IMC. When in VMC, there is no need to be on the ATC IFR frequency because the system is (and has always been) an alerted see and avoid environment without ATC assistance.
The US system works superbly with many thousands of CTAFs below radar coverage, and well disciplined pilots on one frequency or the other, not on both at the same time.
For example, Qantas no longer has to do a complete new re-certification with modifications for a new aircraft. Qantas can accept the certification performed by the FAA. I understand the savings were something like $1 million per model.
In relation to the claim that an aircraft has to be on 2 frequencies in a CTAF, I will attempt to explain - seeing that you will not phone me. If Dubbo was to be Class E airspace, any IFR operators performing an instrument approach to Dubbo would remain on the ATC frequency when in IMC. If VMC existed, the pilot would change to the CTAF frequency when within 10 miles of the aerodrome. When in IMC there is no need to be on the CTAF frequency as VFR aircraft cannot fly in IMC. When in VMC, there is no need to be on the ATC IFR frequency because the system is (and has always been) an alerted see and avoid environment without ATC assistance.
The US system works superbly with many thousands of CTAFs below radar coverage, and well disciplined pilots on one frequency or the other, not on both at the same time.
Dick:
What if it is VMC at & below (say) 1,000 AGL (fog & cloud can lift, you know)? VFR would be on the CTAF, and IFR doing an approach would be with ATC. The VFR is in VMC and the IFR is in IMC – a regular occurrence. Frequency separation?
Not to mention how impressed everyone would be with class E airspace in this scenario – all IFRs departing and arriving delayed because ATC has to provide separation rather than DTI.
Anyway, you have a few questions by Four Seven Eleven which you seem reluctant to answer.
What if it is VMC at & below (say) 1,000 AGL (fog & cloud can lift, you know)? VFR would be on the CTAF, and IFR doing an approach would be with ATC. The VFR is in VMC and the IFR is in IMC – a regular occurrence. Frequency separation?
Not to mention how impressed everyone would be with class E airspace in this scenario – all IFRs departing and arriving delayed because ATC has to provide separation rather than DTI.
Anyway, you have a few questions by Four Seven Eleven which you seem reluctant to answer.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another 'falsie...'
Mr Smith
'Just had a look in the White Pages for Mr CapCom's phone number: Result - "There are no listings matching your search criteria."
Couldn't be another 'false' name could it?
Your inconsistency is starting to wear thin.
The questions remain...... unanswered......
'Just had a look in the White Pages for Mr CapCom's phone number: Result - "There are no listings matching your search criteria."
Couldn't be another 'false' name could it?
Your inconsistency is starting to wear thin.
The questions remain...... unanswered......
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Author!? Author!?
Dick Smith:
John Anderson – Deputy PM, Mister for Transport etc.:
QANTAS: (Minutes of the QLD RAPAC meeting 19 Feb 2002
So, Dick Smith says it was QANTAS and CASA, the Minister says it was Dick Smith and QANTAS, and QANTAS say that it was Dick Smith, using their crayons.
Mr Smith:
A simple question this time:
Who wrote NAS?
The NAS USA system (as initiated by Qantas and CASA and supported by myself)
I must pay tribute to Mr Dick Smith and Qantas for developing this proposal.
David Robinson provided some background to the NAS proposal advising that QANTAS had only provide secretarial support to Dick Smith who had instigated the proposal
Mr Smith:
A simple question this time:
Who wrote NAS?