New airspace: Dick Smith
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Sydney
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4711.
Very astute. I wondered if this would come up and you have correctly picked how the thing happened. Good investigative work, if I owned a half descent publication I would hire you tomorrow.
Very astute. I wondered if this would come up and you have correctly picked how the thing happened. Good investigative work, if I owned a half descent publication I would hire you tomorrow.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith, 'it shouldn't be in secret.'
Dick Smith speaks on ‘independence’, speaks against ‘favouritism’, ‘cronyism’. Says it ‘should all be on the public agenda’.
June 2001:
http://old.smh.com.au/news/0006/21/n...ational09.html
Dick Smith, Chairman, Civil Aviation Safety Authority 1997-1999:
Australian Broadcasting Corporation,FOUR CORNERS,TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s20879.htm
Good to hear these sort of sentiments. And now, for some answers? (Over 10,500 'views' so far. People are watching!)
June 2001:
Last night's appointment of Mr Peter Harris, a deputy director of the Department of Transport, was criticised by former CASA chairman Mr Dick Smith, who said it would threaten the independence of the aviation watchdog.
………………………
Mr Smith, who has criticised Mr Toller, for being "too soft", and the Federal Minister for Transport, Mr Anderson, for being afraid of reform, said Mr Harris's appointment was harmful.
"There must be some internal problems if the minister makes a move like this," Mr Smith said. "It means the department now has control of both CASA and the Bureau of Air Safety. In the US, appointments to such positions are presidential and above political interference. That is not the case in Australia."
………………………
Mr Smith, who has criticised Mr Toller, for being "too soft", and the Federal Minister for Transport, Mr Anderson, for being afraid of reform, said Mr Harris's appointment was harmful.
"There must be some internal problems if the minister makes a move like this," Mr Smith said. "It means the department now has control of both CASA and the Bureau of Air Safety. In the US, appointments to such positions are presidential and above political interference. That is not the case in Australia."
Dick Smith, Chairman, Civil Aviation Safety Authority 1997-1999:
Australian Broadcasting Corporation,FOUR CORNERS,TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
Also I think there's a very strong lesson for CASA here and that is that any favouritism, cronyism or capture just cannot continue.
See, there is immense pressure, in a safety regulator there's immense pressure from unions, from commercial interests. But it should be all on the public agenda, it shouldn't be in secret.
See, there is immense pressure, in a safety regulator there's immense pressure from unions, from commercial interests. But it should be all on the public agenda, it shouldn't be in secret.
Good to hear these sort of sentiments. And now, for some answers? (Over 10,500 'views' so far. People are watching!)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IS that It...???
Dick Smith:
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.
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.
Asked the industry of late what they think of User Pays????
Dick Smith:
Most of these changes have been in for many years and have not been reversed or caused any safety problems.
Most of these changes have been in for many years and have not been reversed or caused any safety problems.
Dick Smith:
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.
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.
Dick Smith:
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.
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.
Hang-on, CTAF’s now?, was it not Unicom’s when we last discussed our American Cousin’s Airspace????
Well disciplined Pilots? Are you accusing Australian Pilots of being a lower standard to the Yank’s? or are you admitting that Pilots (being Human) make mistakes (Do not broadcast and or listen to appropriate Frequencies)???
So you admit then that monitoring 2 or more frequencies at one time is STUPID?!?!
HHHMMMM, What the devil was going on with that NAF rubbish during the “G” thing??????
I’m getting dizzy going round in circles….!!!!
Answer 4711’s Questions Mr Smith, as the Technical stuff appears to be a little difficult!!!!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking for 'sympathy' ...and answers......
Mr Smith
As we approach 11,000 views of this thread, I once more appeal to you to place the aviation community's minds at rest about the airspace reform process.
Edited to remove quote from Aussie Andy's previous post.
The irony is that my first post (14 May) was a genuine and heartfelt welcome, a rebuke to those who chose to denigrate you, and a genuine request for information. Since then, the real story behind this thread, and the reason that it will probably reach 11,000 views by tomorrow night, is your refusal to answer those simple questions. You have obviously chosen to post on PPRuNE for a reason. One can only assume that part of that reason is to influence opinion in the aviation community. Ask yourself: how do you think opinions are being influenced so far?
You have stated that my anonymity is the reason that you refuse to answer the questions I have posted. This is in spite of the fact that:
http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Con...?ContentID=156
The reasons you have given for being unwilling to answer my questions just do not stand up. Surely by now it is time to answer the questions, repeated below for your convenience:
1) It seems to be an accepted fact that you have been a supporter of the NAS proposal since its inception. If you accept this, would you like to comment on any conflict of interest which may have arisen by virtue of your participation in the panel which was formed to assess airspace models. In effect, was your mind already made up before the first meeting?
2) You have been chairman of the CAA and later CASA. Will you accept a senior position in the new airspace authority, if one is offered by the Minister?
Have any discussions regarding any such offer taken place?
3) Will the minutes, submissions received, deliberations, decision-making process and voting of the panel be made public?
4) Given the fact that the cost estimates have been based upon "asking advice from air traffic controllers and ex Airservices management staff", will this advice be made public?
5) When this advice was received, how did it compare to the savings to be achieved through the other models (e.g. LLAMP)? Were any costings in fact done for any other models?
6) What was the basis for the safety case (or study/assessment etc.) for the adoption of the NAS system? How did it compare with the same studies done for the other models?
and the latest, for good measure:
7) Who wrote NAS?
Australia watches, and waits...................
As the billy boils.......
This post has been edited to remove a quote from one of Aussie Andy's previous posts. I apologise to Andy for any adverse inference drawn from that quote. Andy's posts are a valuable contribution to this debate, and should be welcomed.
As we approach 11,000 views of this thread, I once more appeal to you to place the aviation community's minds at rest about the airspace reform process.
Edited to remove quote from Aussie Andy's previous post.
The irony is that my first post (14 May) was a genuine and heartfelt welcome, a rebuke to those who chose to denigrate you, and a genuine request for information. Since then, the real story behind this thread, and the reason that it will probably reach 11,000 views by tomorrow night, is your refusal to answer those simple questions. You have obviously chosen to post on PPRuNE for a reason. One can only assume that part of that reason is to influence opinion in the aviation community. Ask yourself: how do you think opinions are being influenced so far?
You have stated that my anonymity is the reason that you refuse to answer the questions I have posted. This is in spite of the fact that:
- You have already answered any number of questions from 'anonymous' contributors, where the questions were more to your liking.
- You have quoted 'anonymous' PPRuNe contributors on your own web site, where their views were to your liking.
- Also on your web site, your state that you do not want to know the real names of PPRuNe contributors.
It has been claimed that most of the PPRuNe contributors use false names because they are cowards. I don’t agree. These pilots have my sympathy as I understand their careers could be jeopardised if they identified themselves. I do not wish to know their true identities and I’m not sure that it’s constructive to distribute lists of who they are.
I realise that some of the contributors are probably genuine and would truly like to be open and truthful. The current aviation environment precludes this. For example, anyone who works for the ATSB, CASA or the airlines and openly criticised one of these organisations on PPRuNe would have a very limited career path.
The reasons you have given for being unwilling to answer my questions just do not stand up. Surely by now it is time to answer the questions, repeated below for your convenience:
1) It seems to be an accepted fact that you have been a supporter of the NAS proposal since its inception. If you accept this, would you like to comment on any conflict of interest which may have arisen by virtue of your participation in the panel which was formed to assess airspace models. In effect, was your mind already made up before the first meeting?
2) You have been chairman of the CAA and later CASA. Will you accept a senior position in the new airspace authority, if one is offered by the Minister?
Have any discussions regarding any such offer taken place?
3) Will the minutes, submissions received, deliberations, decision-making process and voting of the panel be made public?
4) Given the fact that the cost estimates have been based upon "asking advice from air traffic controllers and ex Airservices management staff", will this advice be made public?
5) When this advice was received, how did it compare to the savings to be achieved through the other models (e.g. LLAMP)? Were any costings in fact done for any other models?
6) What was the basis for the safety case (or study/assessment etc.) for the adoption of the NAS system? How did it compare with the same studies done for the other models?
and the latest, for good measure:
7) Who wrote NAS?
Australia watches, and waits...................
As the billy boils.......
This post has been edited to remove a quote from one of Aussie Andy's previous posts. I apologise to Andy for any adverse inference drawn from that quote. Andy's posts are a valuable contribution to this debate, and should be welcomed.
Last edited by Four Seven Eleven; 24th Jun 2002 at 04:05.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith:
You didn't support the introduction of user pays?
Then why are there reams of paperwork held by the RAAF with respect to your numerous proposals re cross-charging and the Military paying for services?
Pull the other one!!!!!
You didn't support the introduction of user pays?
Then why are there reams of paperwork held by the RAAF with respect to your numerous proposals re cross-charging and the Military paying for services?
Pull the other one!!!!!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm trying hard to view this informative thread with impartiality, but can't help getting a little steamed when someone's recollection of past events seems to differ from reality.
I also don't like the references to Australian pilots being adverse to change. That is just not true. LAMP was close to implementation, indicating a willingness to change if the change procedures were done correctly.
Dick, I am looking forward to your response to 4711's questions and would like to add one of my own:
Will you personally sign-off on the implementation of NAS (whoops - airspace changes), if it gets that far?
I also don't like the references to Australian pilots being adverse to change. That is just not true. LAMP was close to implementation, indicating a willingness to change if the change procedures were done correctly.
Dick, I am looking forward to your response to 4711's questions and would like to add one of my own:
Will you personally sign-off on the implementation of NAS (whoops - airspace changes), if it gets that far?
Last edited by Lodown; 24th Jun 2002 at 05:08.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The old "resistant to change" label is always an easy one to trot out when people don't like an idea as much as you think they should, isn't it? Funny though, I don't think I've ever heard of anyone being described as "resistant to improvement" or having to do an "improvement management course". Wonder why?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe he was misquoted......
Maybe Mr Smith was misquoted when he expressed an afinity for 'dictatorship'. (See previous post)
Perhaps he was merely launching the latest in Dick Smith Foods' range of Aussie potato snacks - in competition with 'Smith's Crisps', and was encouraging people to buy:
Dick 'Tater Chips!!
When all else fails, you've just gotta laugh
Perhaps he was merely launching the latest in Dick Smith Foods' range of Aussie potato snacks - in competition with 'Smith's Crisps', and was encouraging people to buy:
Dick 'Tater Chips!!
When all else fails, you've just gotta laugh
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick tater' Chips.....
I'll stick to the Kettle chips I think....
The other would surely leave a bitter taste..
PS. Hey Dick, does the Aus Mint still have the plates for your "Dickie Dollars"?.
Perhaps it might be a good time to forget Aviation (Part A of the grand plan!), and go straight to part B, the BIG prize,....
"The first Australian Presidency"
On second thoughts........
Ain't there some other frontier yet to be explored,.....HMMMM, I know!!!....MARS
The other would surely leave a bitter taste..
PS. Hey Dick, does the Aus Mint still have the plates for your "Dickie Dollars"?.
Perhaps it might be a good time to forget Aviation (Part A of the grand plan!), and go straight to part B, the BIG prize,....
"The first Australian Presidency"
On second thoughts........
Ain't there some other frontier yet to be explored,.....HMMMM, I know!!!....MARS
