New airspace: Dick Smith

[Four Seven Eleven]

Airspace reform……. in his own words – by Dick Smith

In a letter to the Minister of transport, then Chairman of CASA, Dick Smith said:

At its meeting on 26 September 1997, the (CASA) Board considered Mr Sharp’s request and….the following motion was agreed:
Motion
That the Deputy Chairman write to the Minister …..and that the Board considers that:
the determination of Airspace is properly a function of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA);
http://www.dotrs.gov.au/aviation/hawke/att_d.htm

From John Anderson’s Press Release 13 May 2002:

The ARG (chaired by Dick Smith) recommended:
(iv) work be immediately set in train for the establishment of an Airspace Directorate, separate from CASA or a corporatised Airservices Australia, to progress future airspace reform.
http://www.dotars.gov.au/media/ander...2/a54_2002.htm

A change of heart now that he is no longer chairman of CASA? One eye on the “Airspace Director” chair, perhaps?

[Four Seven Eleven]

A mind already made up?

The Minister for Transport and Regional Services gave the Aviation Reform Group specific terms of reference. The process was paid for by, you, the Australian tax-payer.http://www.dotars.gov.au/media/ander...2/a22_2002.htm

Did they deliver, or was the “assessment of the two proposals” a sham? Within six days of the announcement of the terms of reference, the main 'umpire' was pulling on the NAS boots and settling in at full forward:
http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Con...?ContentID=194

The group will consider two proposals for reforming Australia's low level airspace -- the Airspace Working Group's Low Level Airspace Reform Plan (LAMP), and the proposed National Airspace System (NAS). (John Anderson 22 Feb 2002)

Anderson 22 Feb 2002: "The assessment of the two proposals will take into account:
the cost effectiveness of each of the competing proposals;
Smith 28 Feb 2002: Also the present system is at least $50 million per annum more expensive than the NAS proposal

Anderson 22 Feb 2002: (ii) the degree of industry support for each proposal and the comments of the industry stakeholders on the merits of LAMP and NAS;
Smith 28 Feb 2002: Finally, the Airservices Low-Level Airspace Management Plan (LAMP) is a no goer as CASA have stated they will not allow an increase in the dimensions of mandatory radio areas which is a fundamental requirement of LAMP.

Anderson 22 Feb 2002: (iii) the ability to implement each proposal within a reasonable timeframe;
Anderson 22 Feb 2002: (iv) the degree to which each proposal is in accordance with ICAO airspace classifications;
Smith 28 Feb 2002: The NAS is primarily based on the proven, simple and safe American system.

Anderson 22 Feb 2002: (v) which proposal is more closely harmonised with international best practice; and
Anderson 22 Feb 2002: (vi) other substantive issues that the ARG considers relevant to an informed recommendation.

Did any proposal other than NAS really stand a chance?

Civil Air, AOPA , AFALPA, Mr Brereton and all other interested groups, it is time to ask the minister for answers!

[Creampuff]

Love your work, FOW er Sev en Wun Wun.

It now seems to me that Mr Smith’s public statements may not reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal requirements applicable to airspace regulation. It seems to me that Mr Smith (and indeed the CASA Board) may have a very detailed knowledge of who does and does not have power to determine airspace and the services to be provided therein.

One may therefore only speculate as why Mr Smith and the Board of CASA purported to implement, or at least acquiesced in the purported implementation by CASA of, an airspace ‘trial’ that CASA had absolutely no power to implement.

Mr Smith: you’re willing to talk the talk, but let’s see if you’re willing to walk the walk.

If the Airservices Regulations were to be amended so that the power to determine classes of airspace and the services to be provided therein could be delegated to you personally, would you:

1. accept a delegation of those powers;
2. make determinations to give effect to your preferred model; and
3. accept responsibility for, and be prepared to be held directly and solely liable for, the budget and safety consequences of those determinations.

The answer is a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’.

[twodogsflying]

4711 - good call.

Creampuff - totally agree with you on your previous post.

Dick, Dick where are you Dick! (I must start to lose weight!)

[Piston_Broke]

Four Seven Eleven

You are spot on. In my opinion all the members of the "Airspace Reform Group" had a conflict of interest.

- DS - as creator of the NAS, despite claims to the contrary
- Airservices - have a commercial interest
- CASA - ultimately will have to approve the Safety Case

The ARG (or at least it's advisory committee) should have been made up of a group of Industry reps. from all sections, people with the specialist knowledge required to come up with an unbiased recommendation. Gee, didn't LAMP have that? According to documents on the AA website the LAMP Airspace Working Group was made up of QF AN Pearl Aviation Eastern RAAA AOPA Air North RAPAC Skywest SAAA Kendell Sunstate DoD Airservices. Not that they could have done much with NAS, because the detail is not there and it is largely not ICAO compliant etc.

Creampuff

You are correct re. airspace legalities (and there was no class D declared for the Grand Prix, so I don't know where he got that from). Also ICAO specifies how much airspace is required to provide protection to airways, and in this instance the standard will be used to determine how wide the "E" corridors must be. Despite claims from one quarter, the existing class "E" corridors are no wider than what they are required to be under ICAO - and CASA mandate that those standards must be used. If, as the NAS document says "Class E airspace will be established lower to 700ft AGL in terminal areas with published let down procedures but without tower services", then to chart all these strips of "E" would be a nightmare. And there would be many hundreds of them because, taken at face value this NAS statement covers ALL types of let down procedures i.e. everything from a GPS approach up.

Actually I recall reading somewhere that the LAMP AWG looked at "E" corridors early in the piece, and discarded the concept as unworkable.

Finally, I noticed the following the other day (my emphasis)

Hansard Tuesday, 4 June 2002-06-06
House of Representatives Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2002-03 Second Reading
Speech Mr Martin Ferguson

With the battleground strewn with the remnants of the last airline war, what happened this week? The minister advocated a third carrier. He actually went further than that: he stated that the policy framework has already been established by him for that purpose. The only policy framework seems to be that of Adam Smith and the invisible hands-I contend that John Anderson has been sitting on his hands and has left the policy to run itself. The other Mr Smith has come to the rescue-none other than Mr Dick Smith, an especially important friend of the Prime Minister. The minister has turned to Dick and the other learned gentlemen to tell him what to do on airspace management. There is not one expert on airspace management policy and not one air traffic controller amongst them involved in the process. But Dick Smith is popular, so the minister hopes that he can deliver for him one popular aviation policy. The opposition is watching. The jury is out on airspace reform and it will stay out until some experts-not the razor gang-get to look at it.

[cogwheel]

I don't think it really matters much. The Minister has said there will be change and for reasons that he thinks best he has decided that the NAS model should be the one to follow.....end of story.

GA in Oz is going down the gurgle big time and whilst there are many factors assisting that, some of them are airspace design and management and the complexity of the system. We wont go into the over regulation that CASA are pushing right now, but of course that does not help much either.

Since AsA (note the small 'a') has found the need for a cash register (at the direction of the Government of course) they have not done very much at all which is not in their own commercial interests - screw the industry - who cares? Well one day we will sit back and wonder where it all went. Of course the Board of AsA could stand up to the Government/Minister and say that such and such was not safe and refuse to go down a particular path, but they don't have the knowledge and expertise to make that challenge!

Gee the days of VFR full reporting etc were nice but was it any safer? The days of DTI were (past tense) nice also, but was that any safer?

It's the CHANGE that most don't like. Get over it, there will be change and it will be the Minister that will be the judge and jury if the industry cannot get its act together.

There is a process in place where operators and associations can have their say. Some do and some don't. If you are in the group that don't then don't squeal when the changes kick in and you don't like them!

Show me anyone other than Dick that is looking after the big picture on this issue. Everyone else seems to have their own wheelbarrow to push. Not really the way to participate in such a project.

Australian Air is not special and does not need unique procedures or design to make it work. If this means we have to change the way we do business and our work practices then that is the way it MUST go if we are to advance. Our controllers are all quite fine people and very professional, but the system in which they work needs change big time to make it more flexible and efficient.

[Creampuff]

Yes, but .....

Cogwheel

Show me the Airservices legislation that gives the Minister the power to determine classes of airspace and the level of services to be provided therein, or to decide who should exercise those powers.

I can save you some time: he doesn’t have that power.

One of the reasons the Parliament set up these organisations like CASA and AA separate from the Commonwealth, and conferred either directly or indirectly on them the power to make safety-related decisions, was to reduce the amount of political interference in decisions affecting objective levels of safety. (By the way, under the Air Services Act 1995, the legal name of Airservices is "Airservices Australia", and its legal acronym is "AA". The small "s" was some spin doctor’s idea, given the negative connotations of "AA".)

(Please note that I said "reduce" not "eradicate" political interference, and that I do not suggest the intended outcome has been achieved. Indeed, my view is that the strategy has failed because the process is as prone to political interference as it ever was, if not more so, but it’s now not so obvious. At least when the Minister alone had these powers, you knew who was being got at and why.)

Key point: the Minister and the government of which he is a part is not the Parliament.

Nothing will change unless and until the Parliament agrees with the change. And that’s very different from a Minister issuing a press release.

Having said all that, I stress again that I have yet to decide whether the NAS model is any "better" or "worse" than the LAMP model or the existing model. The main point of my penultimate post was to find out the strength of Mr Smith’s convictions. If he indeed believes the NAS model will be at least as safe or safer than the LAMP model and the existing airspace model, and if he indeed believes that the NAS model will be cheaper than the LAMP model and the existing airspace model, then he should have no hesitation in responding in the affirmative to my question.

[Dick Smith]

I will endeavour to give a few more answers, however I find it incredibly difficult when I have no idea of the real names of the people who are making these comments and whether they are genuine or just having a bit of fun. I will, however, do my best.

BIK_116.80 states

“I am not aware of any non-radar control zones in the UK.”

An example would be Plymouth. This has a tower in a similar way to Albury or Coffs Harbour. The airport is serviced by Dash 8 aircraft. They depart Gatwick in controlled airspace and then fly through Class G airspace below FL245, then cross a controlled airway, then descend in Class G airspace before changing to the Plymouth Tower. They receive a radar advisory service when the nearby military radar is operating. No radar service is provided when this radar is closed. I have sat in the flight deck of a Dash 8 flying into Plymouth and spent hours in the tower. I understand there are over a dozen similar towers in the UK. My suggestion is that people look up Plymouth on the internet, get the phone number for the tower and ring the controller to get the real information.

Creampuff, never for a second did I believe that Class E corridors or other airspace amendments would not be done by due legal process. However if Birdsville can be turned into a control zone by a simple process, it is obvious that other controlled airspace can be prescribed by Airservices.

You state

“and there was no class D declared for the Grand Prix”

Is this an example of your knowledge and accuracy? In fact, area R932 was controlled by the “Track Tower” under Class D control tower procedures as clearly stated in the “Helicopter Operations Australian Grand Prix Albert Park 2002” documentation.

No, I would not accept a delegation of the power to determine classes of airspace personally. However if I were part of a group who made these determinations, I would accept responsibility and accountability for the decision.

Twodogsflying, I do not believe that industry participation has been undermined. With the LAMP process there has been over 3 years of industry participation, however no decision was made. In fact, there has been nearly 10 years of consultation and discussion on airspace but consensus has never been attained.

In the long term, Governments must make decisions and that is what they have done this time. The decision is actually very conservative as no one could say that the US airspace system is unsafe.

You also state

“I find it interesting that you are suggesting that the NAS comes from the Chief Pilot of Qantas.”

Please do not distort what I have said. My wording was quite simple.

“This proposal to move to the USA NAS system was instigated by both Ian Lucas (Qantas Chief Pilot) and senior people at CASA.”

I did not suggest that Qantas wrote the NAS document, simply that the proposal to move to the USA system came from Qantas. I am amazed that none of you bother to lift the telephone and ask Ian Lucas if this is true. I’m sure he would confirm that it is.

Ferris, you do not agree with the advice I have received in relation to savings that can be made in airspace. Can I suggest you phone me on 02 9450 0600 and give me better advice? You could do it from a public phone and I won’t ask you to identify yourself.

Karrank, once again I did not state that Qantas prepared the NAS document – please see above. You should phone me so I can explain to you how the US system works. I can assure you that in the USA and Canada there are many Class E corridors at low level that have no radar or VHF coverage and they work superbly. When recently flying in the USA I was told that I would be out of VHF coverage, even though I was at an IFR level, and to call the controller on a new frequency in 15 minutes time. Obviously if another aircraft had called up and wanted to fly at my level in that airspace they would not be given a clearance. What could be simpler?

Adamastor, if the NAS system is going to cost an extra $100 million, surely there would be people at Airservices who would support NAS. Airservices is a profit making commercial monopoly and would have to increase its charges by over $100 million to cover the claimed extra cost. The industry would be forced to pay and Airservices would make more profits.

Tacolote, I have not attacked “the controllers” and I do not believe the savings can just come from controller efficiencies. For example, we have a hugely expensive HF network which is not required in the US mainland system because of Class E airspace. In our present system, the directed traffic information service must be provided, and therefore an HF network is necessary. With a Class E service in low traffic density airspace, when only one aircraft may operate IFR at an airport per day, a simple clearance by telephone (only when IMC exists) will suffice and not delay anyone. This system is used in the USA and Canada all the time and works superbly at low cost.

Achilles, I agree that there is cross-subsidisation between cities and the country and I totally support this. However, the fact is that we have never had radar and an ILS at Broken Hill because the cross-subsidy would be too great. You are very keen on keeping “the basic directed traffic information”, whereas I believe there are better ways of doing this. When a Class E separation service can be provided at a lower cost than a directed traffic service, surely we should look at it.

You then state,

“I am interested to hear what safety improvements will be made. May I suggest that DTI to remain be one of them.”

One of the main safety improvements will be an increase in the number of UNICOMs to provide a third party service at airports where calling in the blind is the norm. Where DTI is upgraded to a Class E separation service, this will also be a safety improvement.

I agree, there will be many areas under the NAS system where a directed traffic service is not applied enroute in Class G airspace. However, this will only be in areas where the traffic density is so low that the service is not required to achieve required levels of safety.

Four Seven Eleven, you make out that I made the decision to go with the NAS proposal. I did not. This was made by the Government – it actually went to Cabinet. Surely that is our democratic system? Our unpopular GST was a move to follow the tax systems of many other countries. The decision was made by our elected Government using all the expertise they could obtain. I personally didn’t like the decision, but I do like the way our economy is performing.

I am quite consistent as to where I believe decisions in relation to airspace efficiencies should be made. That is, I believe they should not be made by Airservices, which is a commercial profit making business. I agree that the changes should only be made by legislation and this is what the Government has said it will do.

The main point you appear to have missed is the fact that when I left CASA 3 years ago, the Government was told that within 6 months an airspace system would be agreed upon and implementation would start. After 3 years no decision was made and no implementation date was set. Surely there must be a message in this.

[Creampuff]

Dr Mr Smith

I note and thank you for your answer "no". Given that answer, it is reasonable for me to conclude that you are not convinced the NAS model will be at least as safe or safer than the LAMP model and the existing airspace model, and nor are you convinced the NAS model will be cheaper than the LAMP model and the existing airspace model.

You ask whether a statement you attribute to me is an example of my knowledge and accuracy. That metaphor about a pot and a kettle springs to mind. I suggest you double-check the provenance of that statement. (Don’t worry – we all make mistakes.)

But let me address the ‘control zone by NOTAM’ matter, head on. The fact that the holders of delegations to declare Romeo and Danger Areas might purport to exercise those delegations in such a way as to create a pretend control zone, merely begs the question. It may well be that those declarations are not authorised by the PRD-making power: someone may well be planting road signs they have no power to plant.

[Piston_Broke]

DS

Twodogsflying, I do not believe that industry participation has been undermined. With the LAMP process there has been over 3 years of industry participation, however no decision was made.

According to many sources (including those on it), the LAMP AWG all agreed to the final model (including QF) except AOPA SAAA & AFAP. Why don't you give the RAPAC rep. Ron McGrath a call?

Adamastor, if the NAS system is going to cost an extra $100 million, surely there would be people at Airservices who would support NAS.

AA has hinted at industry meetings this year that NAS will cost them more than the current system, and warned that if so they would be obliged to pass on the cost. Conversly in the past they said LAMP would result in cost savings.

One of the main safety improvements will be an increase in the number of UNICOMs to provide a third party service at airports

The AD operators and airlines etc. do not want to pay for UNICOMs or CAGRS - that is why there are few of them. What with indemnity insurance and wages, facilities etc they do not come cheap - and you yourself have criticised the Yulara service, which is a high cost location. Also UNICOM cannot give DTI - they do not have the training or facilities required as with CAGROs.

quote:
“and there was no class D declared for the Grand Prix”
Is this an example of your knowledge and accuracy? In fact, area R932 was controlled by the “Track Tower” under Class D control tower procedures as clearly stated in the “Helicopter Operations Australian Grand Prix Albert Park 2002” documentation.

It was I who said that, not Creamy. And although I didn't see this year's NOTAMs I base my comment on those issued previously - not what might have appeared in unofficial (= non-Airservices) documentation distributed to helicopters. There was no mention of any class of airspace in the NOTAMs, only declaration of temporary restricted areas. Declaration of classes of airspace is an entirely different situation under the Air Services Regulations.

[Four Seven Eleven]

Thank you. And now for some answers........

Four Seven Eleven, you make out that I made the decision to go with the NAS proposal. I did not. This was made by the Government – it actually went to Cabinet. Surely that is our democratic system?

"Minister, the traditional allocation of executive responsibilities has always been so determined as to liberate the ministerial incumbent from the administrative minutiae by devolving the managerial functions to those whose experience and qualifications have better formed them for the performance of such humble offices, thereby releasing their political overlords for the more onerous duties and profound deliberations which are the inevitable concomitant of their exalted position." – Sir Humphrey Appleby

Mr Smith, our democratic system relies on a number of systems, not the least being the ability of responsible ministers to establish independent and impartial panels to consider matters of national significance. I am concerned, as I have stated elsewhere, that you have failed to distinguish between your rightful role as a strong advocate of change, and your role under the public purse as an impartial adviser. You were entrusted by parliament with an important duty. I contend that you allowed self-interest to obscure your judgment. I do not contend that the self-interest was of a financial or otherwise improper nature. The ARG was entrusted with a duty to “consider two proposals for reforming Australia's low level airspace -- the Airspace Working Group's Low Level Airspace Reform Plan (LAMP), and the proposed National Airspace System (NAS).” I contend that the group did no such thing and that this constitutes an abrogation of public duty.

Other public officials are required to declare conflicts of interest and advise the government that they are unable to act impartially. You failed to do this. Mr Smith, this is not Dick Smith Foods. This is a public issue.

I am quite consistent as to where I believe decisions in relation to airspace efficiencies should be made. That is, I believe they should not be made by Airservices, which is a commercial profit making business.

Mr Smith, your own statements directly contradict this. I have quoted you when, as chairman of CASA, you said that “determination of Airspace is properly a function of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)”. Now that you are no longer in charge of CASA, you recommend that the government establish “an Airspace Directorate, separate from CASA or a corporatised Airservices Australia, to progress future airspace reform.” The only consistency here is that you want to remove airspace administration from the last authority you were in charge of. What is the reason for this? Is there a ‘Kirribili Plan’ for the Airspace Director’s job?

Your posts are enlightening more because of the questions you refuse to answer, but I will repeat them in case you have a change of heart:

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?

[ferris]

Job offer

I'd like to thank you, Mr Smith, for your offer to receive my advice. Please forward details of the remuneration package etc. to me by email at your earliest convenience.
Although I am currently working overseas (driven out by an onerous tax sytem- something I am sure you don't have to worry about!), I feel I have a lot to contribute, and though I won't come cheap, I am sure you will get your monies' worth.
Regards,
Ferris.

[Four Seven Eleven]

And while we're at it.....

Mr Smith

You said:

Twodogsflying, I do not believe that industry participation has been undermined. With the LAMP process there has been over 3 years of industry participation, however no decision was made.

I believe the minister did convene a panel with the express intention of making a 'decision' on the LAMP model. Now you say 'no decision was made.' Wasn't that your job? Why did you not do it?

[Achilles]

Dick,

I agree, there will be many areas under the NAS system where a directed traffic service is not applied enroute in Class G airspace. However, this will only be in areas where the traffic density is so low that the service is not required to achieve required levels of safety.

I give you a real life example... descending into YSBK in Class G from BIK or KAT during weekday evenings can be quite 'interesting' from a mixture of traffic point of view (piton and turbine bank runners, training a/c in the BK Training Area randomly manoeuvring, the occasional military aircraft transiting Richmomnd/Holsworthy, Careflight choppers into and out of Liverpool hospital and even the occasional corporate jet).

No DTI inClass G would make for an immensly greater risk of a calamity in trying to get to 2RN or PSP in that sort of environment.

How will the Class G areas with DTI and Class G areas without DTI be identified (on ERC's, VTC's NOTAMS, ERSA????), and will this just make things more confusing?

[Spodman]

In our present system, the directed traffic information service must be provided, and therefore an HF network is necessary. With a Class E service in low traffic density airspace, when only one aircraft may operate IFR at an airport per day, a simple clearance by telephone (only when IMC exists) will suffice and not delay anyone.

Hell's bells Dick! Is this where some of the $50 mil is coming from??? Do you realise how bad the VHF coverage can be in places aircraft really go?

You mention that if NAS would cost $100 mil more to run there would be people in AsA keen to play. Conversely there are ATC like myself that would be happy to take an increase in our workload and the complexity of our tasks, provided I'm not overworked. If the sectors are arranged and staffed for the nice days when everybody is really in VMC and all problems can be fixed by reverting to VFR I predict gridlock when the weather turns to cr@p.

Spodman, out of the closet as Mark Spedding, MCO ATC En-route, the e-mail in my profile works.....

[ferris]

Someone should point out that the expensive(?) HF network is used by RPT's crossing the Bight, and International Oceanic etc. so there is not much chance of it being shut. It is only a matter of who will be allowed to use it in the future?

[Capn Laptop]

Dick,

I believe that you are genuine in your wish to reform Australian Aviation.

That being said I also believe that you are one of the most destructive forces in Australian Aviation.

The notion that if we make our "unique" system more like the rest of the world we will all be better off is misguided.

The notion that the australian industry will miraculously spring into hyperactivity as a result of adopting overseas procedures is also misguided.

The reality is that the system that existed in Australia before you got your hands on it was world class, was safe and was well suited to OUR environment.

The fact that it was DIFFERENT to other places in the world is irrelevant.

There are VERY FEW Australian GA pilots that fly internationally. Those that do, such as yourself, have a great many more resources than the majority of us.

The reform of Australian airspace, and associated procedures, in order to make it more compatible with overseas is just beyond me. The significant body of foreign pilots that operate into Australia do so at the controls of a large commercial airliner - into the capital city control zones. they go nowhere near the G airspace that you have managed to royally stuff up.

The idea that Class E corridors will solve all our safety concerns is a nonsense.

Try operating a high performance aeroplane along the mining strip of WA, where multiple aeroplanes climb, cruise and descend to a squillion mining strips. Aircraft such as RJ70's, BAe146's, Dash-8's and F50's for example. The possibility of larger aircraft such as 737's moving into the mining closed charter area is very real. Do you wish to have 160 odd people operating into a mining strip with NO directed traffic, no SAR watch, nothing?

Do you expect us to believe that by shifting the cost of providing services to the operators that you have saved the "industry" millions? Who exactly do you intend to pay for things such as unicoms, CAGRO's etc?

Whichever way you cut it, the "industry" pays for it, whether or not it is in the Airservices budget or shifted to an operator.

I can't see small country shire councils picking up the bill for a unicom operator or CAGRO.

There must be some community service benefit to aviation. As such the community should be expected to pay for some of the benefits arising from commercial operations.

I still remember vividly the cries of how the 89 dispute almost ruined the country, yet at the same time the government of the day shifted the cost of aviation to the user in a "user pays" pricing regime.

If there is no benefit to the community of aviation, can someone please tell me how the 89 dispute affected the community as a whole at all?

I don't believe that any reasonable person would expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill for everything, but lets be equitable. I don't see EVERY road having a toll applied to it. Why is aviation so different to other public infrastructure?

Dick, you are well meaning, but you almost signle handedly stuffed aviation in this country - all because you have money and the ear of those that make policy.

Please leave aviation to those that know what they are doing and flog transistors or peanut butter.

[ulm]

Dick, like Boyd, does have the interests of GA at heart. But in my humble opinion, Dick, like Boyd, is incapable of recognising the validity of others' views.

He isn't alone there

But what does Captn laptop suggest, the taxpayer picks up the tab for the needs of IFR CHTR or RPT. Aint gonna happen unless you get a change of Govt back to Communist.

Perhaps he suggests the Pvt operator 'pay thier share' ie subsidise the commercial operator. They do now and ain't happy. Not gonna last much longer.

So Captn, either get used to less service or be prepared to pay for it.

Chuck

[Capn Bloggs]

Ulm,

Half the reason that MBZs are so dangerous, and therefore require a CAGRO, is because of people like you. They (and the cost that goes with them) wouldn't be necessary if there were no bugsmashers. I would be quite happy to tool around in an MBZ with my IFR mates doing the right thing: it's the recalcitrant lighties that cause most of the difficulties! So, you guys cause half the problem, you guys pay half of the solution or get out of the air. And BTW, my company has outlaid a fortune on TCAS to help avoid types like yourself, so turn that #$%^& transponder on!

Regarding your other comment about paying, the Flight Service setup that we used to have (that incidentally still exists in profuse numbers in Canada AND the USA, not that DS will tell you! Do a google serach for "Flight Service Station" and see what pops up) costed a damn sight less than the current, total overkill system we have now, unpalatable as it was to the ego-maniacal bosses in Row zero at Airservices.

The whole subject completely stinks, and the political deal done to shaft LLAMP is an absolute disgrace. I cannot believe that grown men could act like that...

[ferris]

I just thought of a great way to instantly save $100mil per annum! How about ASA stop paying that amount to the govt every year as a 'dividend'!
But then it would just be user pays, instead of user pays and pays and pays etc.
And how about how ASA accounts? They agree to pay that amount to govt. year in year out, regardless of revenue, then work backwards to balance the books. So with a revenue shortfall, they have to run around slashing and burning, and with a revenue excess, they- wait for it- give the extra to govt. as bonus revenue! Don't believe it? Ring 'em up and ask them.