New airspace: Dick Smith
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs
I actually agree with most of what you say.
So next time you do a straight in approach through your own personal airspace, scattering 20 or so legitimate private owners, I'll give you a wave.
From the attitude displayed in your post it was obviously you at Mildura
You want I should turn on a transponder, buy me one.
Chuck
I actually agree with most of what you say.
So next time you do a straight in approach through your own personal airspace, scattering 20 or so legitimate private owners, I'll give you a wave.
From the attitude displayed in your post it was obviously you at Mildura
You want I should turn on a transponder, buy me one.
Chuck
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ulm,
Just what I would expect from a so called private pilot.
Buy me one!
I find it very interesting that people with money fly planes and people with not much money go fishing.
Fishing boats require a number of expensive items required by law to go fishing, so these guys spend their hard earned cash on regulatory safety items that they generally never use, let along turn on to help others.
And If I am in my fishing boat in a commercial channel and the big boy runs me over, I am in the wrong, the private guy, because I did not get out of the road!!!!
Then we have the silver tail PVT pilot like Ulm.
No, I have a god given right to do what I want and if I stuff you around, thats OK because you did not give me the money to make us all safer, so you, the big commercial guy can get out of the road or I will take you to court.. Watch out, I have money and political clout, so I will do this.
Something very wrong in the world tonight!!!!
And if you havn't noticed, a staight in approach is this safest way of landing when a number of aircraft are doing a 5 mile wide circuit, half the speed of what you can do!!!!!!!!!!
twodogs doing what comes naturally
Just what I would expect from a so called private pilot.
Buy me one!
I find it very interesting that people with money fly planes and people with not much money go fishing.
Fishing boats require a number of expensive items required by law to go fishing, so these guys spend their hard earned cash on regulatory safety items that they generally never use, let along turn on to help others.
And If I am in my fishing boat in a commercial channel and the big boy runs me over, I am in the wrong, the private guy, because I did not get out of the road!!!!
Then we have the silver tail PVT pilot like Ulm.
No, I have a god given right to do what I want and if I stuff you around, thats OK because you did not give me the money to make us all safer, so you, the big commercial guy can get out of the road or I will take you to court.. Watch out, I have money and political clout, so I will do this.
Something very wrong in the world tonight!!!!
And if you havn't noticed, a staight in approach is this safest way of landing when a number of aircraft are doing a 5 mile wide circuit, half the speed of what you can do!!!!!!!!!!
twodogs doing what comes naturally
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You no doubt will find this amazing then Dick!!!
Mr Smith Said:
I will ask the question in simple speak:
How will IFR find out about VFR when as you state IFR will be on ATS freq and VFR’s will be on CTAF/MBZ, more over how do IFR pilots maintain a listening watch for ulm in his trike whilst listening to ATS on the area Freq for IFR.
Further if ATS can provide a DTI service in G for Nix (I support that by the way), why is User pays being applied inconsistently?
After all your LSP/User Pays system has had only one effect and that is to place services out of the reach of those who fly general Aviation aircraft in the same airspace as commercial operators, leaving them little choice than to move to uncontrolled HOX type circuses! Again that is from your point of view acceptable even desirable as small numbers of fatalities are not 400 Pax!!!
Perhaps you might explain that rationale?
Mr Smith also said:
I guess then Radar or Procedural separation of IFR’s will create lots of delays and presumably additional ATS positions, or are you expecting already loaded ATC’s to take on additional airspace responsibilities low level.
Irrespective VFR’s will lerk within, ATC will be unable to see or hear them and IFR unable to hear them unless they have 2 Comm’s and the ability to decode 2 freq conversations garbling each other, this will make both the CTAF/MBZ freq’s and area freq’s less effective and thus for mine more dangerous!
WHAT COULD BE SIMPLER?????????
Mr Smith also said:
- Show me how our charges compare with those OS?. Tis’ your LSP regime that has had an effect on those costs levied to Industry offset against reductions of services. 
- Show your proof of the assumption that ATS charges had anything to do with the way Ansett was administered and the resulting collapse. As I understand AsA was one of the creditors owed substantive funds. It was a calamity that has caused so much grief and hardship for the Ansett folks, to blame in such a simplistic fashion is crude and wrong!!
Our Airspace infrastructure costs money. The way those costs are levied needs to be looked at!.
Any players operating into Australia would be paying the same for the same, therefore would operate on a level playing field in relation to ATS charges whilst within our Airspace!.
To say that if something is too expensive rather than deemed Unnecessary by the appropriate non-political agency (It should not be AsA!) ie CASA (Specialist Experienced Airspace operations inspectors not Managers!) is “Dictatorial Affordable Safety”.
I don’t want YOUR affordable safety, rather I want Risk assessed Services based on Need!!
If that is prohibitively expensive for GA, I’m sure Howard could find another “Wooldridge Building Grant” that could be Canned to provide a small subsidy to cover the GA folks.
AsA’s Managers Travel Budget could just about cover it!!
Mr Smith also said:
Why are the Names important??? The Subject matter is the important thing!!
I don’t think anyone participating is “having a bit of Fun” with such a serious subject!!!
Here is a clue Dick- You never did send that box of “Dickheads” you promised on the Frequency!!
Mr Smith also said:
Yep, transformed by the owner the Federal Government to its current state.
Monopoly, Yep!! Airports only have ONE tower each, as is en-route and TMA airspace’s!.
Competition???
If the Government use as justification for corporatisation/privatisation of ATS, the notion that ATS will compete for business and therefore costs to industry will be reduced? Answer me this:
- How will 2 or more towers on an Aerodrome or 2 or more Centres providing services in the same airspace work?
- What do you think a private company (Given a necessarily MONOPOLIC service) with profit as it ONLY motive will do to charges and services??
That “Competition” red herring has run its day, the “Spin Dr’s” need a new line!!!!
Mr Smith, many questions have been asked on this thread regarding a great many aspects of your NAS proposal.
On balance your selection of those subjects on which you provide reply re-enforce the concerns I have regarding your apparent influence in Canberra and your understanding of airspace design and promulgation.
ulm
With that attitude in today’s aviation environment, you could go far.
Dick has provided his Phone number a number of times, give him a call and I’m sure his mate Lye-low John will create another seat on the airspace advisory panel for ya!!!
You Peanut!!
Cogwheel
Bernie S will be proud!!! Extra money in your contract Sonny!!!
Creampuff, Tacolote, 4711, 2Xdogs, Ferris, Capt Laptop – Concur and Salute!!
in relation to Dubbo, you asked who will provide the DTI service. The answer is simple. It will be provided as it is now by ATC. The service in the terminal area will be provided to all IFR aircraft. Aircraft coming in from the controlled airspace above will already be in the system. Aircraft coming into the terminal area from Class G airspace will call ATC and request traffic information.
How will IFR find out about VFR when as you state IFR will be on ATS freq and VFR’s will be on CTAF/MBZ, more over how do IFR pilots maintain a listening watch for ulm in his trike whilst listening to ATS on the area Freq for IFR.
Further if ATS can provide a DTI service in G for Nix (I support that by the way), why is User pays being applied inconsistently?
After all your LSP/User Pays system has had only one effect and that is to place services out of the reach of those who fly general Aviation aircraft in the same airspace as commercial operators, leaving them little choice than to move to uncontrolled HOX type circuses! Again that is from your point of view acceptable even desirable as small numbers of fatalities are not 400 Pax!!!
Perhaps you might explain that rationale?Mr Smith also said:
In time, an airport like Dubbo will go to Class E airspace, and any aircraft performing an instrument approach or departure will require a clearance from ATC – what could be simpler?
Irrespective VFR’s will lerk within, ATC will be unable to see or hear them and IFR unable to hear them unless they have 2 Comm’s and the ability to decode 2 freq conversations garbling each other, this will make both the CTAF/MBZ freq’s and area freq’s less effective and thus for mine more dangerous!
WHAT COULD BE SIMPLER?????????
Mr Smith also said:
Most importantly Capcom, of all of the statements in this thread, the most amazing to me was yours
quote:
“Could you explain how Australian Airspace design has anything to do with global competition?”
This is similar to the statement made to me that the lack of reform and the high costs in aviation have had nothing to do with Ansett going broke and 15,000 people being put out of work. The answer is simple. In a global environment, all Australian businesses have to compete. High costs in aviation are added to business costs and therefore our competitiveness. We already have the disadvantages of long distances and no advantages of efficiencies of scale, so we need to be very astute in the way we save every unnecessary dollar.
quote:
“Could you explain how Australian Airspace design has anything to do with global competition?”
This is similar to the statement made to me that the lack of reform and the high costs in aviation have had nothing to do with Ansett going broke and 15,000 people being put out of work. The answer is simple. In a global environment, all Australian businesses have to compete. High costs in aviation are added to business costs and therefore our competitiveness. We already have the disadvantages of long distances and no advantages of efficiencies of scale, so we need to be very astute in the way we save every unnecessary dollar.
- Show your proof of the assumption that ATS charges had anything to do with the way Ansett was administered and the resulting collapse. As I understand AsA was one of the creditors owed substantive funds. It was a calamity that has caused so much grief and hardship for the Ansett folks, to blame in such a simplistic fashion is crude and wrong!!
Our Airspace infrastructure costs money. The way those costs are levied needs to be looked at!.
Any players operating into Australia would be paying the same for the same, therefore would operate on a level playing field in relation to ATS charges whilst within our Airspace!.
To say that if something is too expensive rather than deemed Unnecessary by the appropriate non-political agency (It should not be AsA!) ie CASA (Specialist Experienced Airspace operations inspectors not Managers!) is “Dictatorial Affordable Safety”.
I don’t want YOUR affordable safety, rather I want Risk assessed Services based on Need!!
If that is prohibitively expensive for GA, I’m sure Howard could find another “Wooldridge Building Grant” that could be Canned to provide a small subsidy to cover the GA folks.
AsA’s Managers Travel Budget could just about cover it!!
Mr Smith also said:
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 don’t think anyone participating is “having a bit of Fun” with such a serious subject!!!
Here is a clue Dick- You never did send that box of “Dickheads” you promised on the Frequency!!
Mr Smith also said:
Airservices is a profit making commercial monopoly
Monopoly, Yep!! Airports only have ONE tower each, as is en-route and TMA airspace’s!.
Competition???
If the Government use as justification for corporatisation/privatisation of ATS, the notion that ATS will compete for business and therefore costs to industry will be reduced? Answer me this:
- How will 2 or more towers on an Aerodrome or 2 or more Centres providing services in the same airspace work?
- What do you think a private company (Given a necessarily MONOPOLIC service) with profit as it ONLY motive will do to charges and services??
That “Competition” red herring has run its day, the “Spin Dr’s” need a new line!!!!
Mr Smith, many questions have been asked on this thread regarding a great many aspects of your NAS proposal.
On balance your selection of those subjects on which you provide reply re-enforce the concerns I have regarding your apparent influence in Canberra and your understanding of airspace design and promulgation.
ulm
With that attitude in today’s aviation environment, you could go far.
Dick has provided his Phone number a number of times, give him a call and I’m sure his mate Lye-low John will create another seat on the airspace advisory panel for ya!!!
You Peanut!!
Cogwheel
Bernie S will be proud!!! Extra money in your contract Sonny!!!
Creampuff, Tacolote, 4711, 2Xdogs, Ferris, Capt Laptop – Concur and Salute!!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question without notice to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services
Mr Anderson
Please take note of the concerns of the aviation industry in respect of your airspace reform, and particularly your appointment of Mr Dick Smith as Chairman of the ARG. Mr Smith and the panel were asked to assess two proposals, one of which was wrtitten by Mr Smith himself.
Not surprisingly, Mr Smith's proposal prevailed! Mr Smith has been asked a number of questions and has been good enough to answer some of them. The questions below, however, remain unanswered.
As either you or your advisers become aware of this thread (and I am certain you will), could you please provide your own answers to the questions below.
Mr Smith
While we wait for more answers to the myriad questions already posed, I offer the following to partially answer the questions I have asked before (repeated below). I look forward to your answers and hope you will be able to allay some of the concerns which I have about the ARG process. Given the short time frame imposed by the minister (thirty-one days), your prior involvement in the NAS proposal and your frequent re-appearance in various roles as a high level public servant, I believe that these concerns are justified.
In addition to seeking answers from yourself, I urge all Members of the House of Representatives and Senators – regardless of your political persuasion - to seek answers directly from the Minister. This matter is too important to allow one man’s private crusade to be imposed upon the Australian public.
As I said in a previous post: We will probably make NAS succeed but we will still wonder “if we should have taken the trouble to really look at the options available”.
My questions once again:.............
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?
OK, not so much a “supporter” as an author.
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?
Not ruling it out then?
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?
Yours in anticipation
Please take note of the concerns of the aviation industry in respect of your airspace reform, and particularly your appointment of Mr Dick Smith as Chairman of the ARG. Mr Smith and the panel were asked to assess two proposals, one of which was wrtitten by Mr Smith himself.
Not surprisingly, Mr Smith's proposal prevailed! Mr Smith has been asked a number of questions and has been good enough to answer some of them. The questions below, however, remain unanswered.
As either you or your advisers become aware of this thread (and I am certain you will), could you please provide your own answers to the questions below.
Mr Smith
While we wait for more answers to the myriad questions already posed, I offer the following to partially answer the questions I have asked before (repeated below). I look forward to your answers and hope you will be able to allay some of the concerns which I have about the ARG process. Given the short time frame imposed by the minister (thirty-one days), your prior involvement in the NAS proposal and your frequent re-appearance in various roles as a high level public servant, I believe that these concerns are justified.
In addition to seeking answers from yourself, I urge all Members of the House of Representatives and Senators – regardless of your political persuasion - to seek answers directly from the Minister. This matter is too important to allow one man’s private crusade to be imposed upon the Australian public.
As I said in a previous post: We will probably make NAS succeed but we will still wonder “if we should have taken the trouble to really look at the options available”.
My questions once again:.............
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?
The model was developed by aviator and businessman, Mr Dick Smith, and Qantas.
I must pay tribute to Mr Dick Smith and Qantas for developing this proposal.
John Anderson - Media Release - 13 May 2002 A54/2002
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
David Robinson, QANTAS representative, minutes of the QLD RAPAC meeting 19 Feb 2002
I must pay tribute to Mr Dick Smith and Qantas for developing this proposal.
John Anderson - Media Release - 13 May 2002 A54/2002
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
David Robinson, QANTAS representative, minutes of the QLD RAPAC meeting 19 Feb 2002
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?
However if I were part of a group who made these determinations, I would accept responsibility and accountability for the decision.
Dick Smith –earlier on this thread
Dick Smith –earlier on this thread
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?
Yours in anticipation
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Here and there
Age: 62
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a shame that this topic of discussion appears to have gone the way a good airspace system that we had 10 years or so ago went.
Too bad Dick and others involved in redesigning Australian airspace, (again), can not see that Australia is different to the rest of the world. The concept of user pays in a place where there are few users and getting less due to the same concept, will never work.
I agree it is fun to fly in the US, and that the system is simple. It also is on a very cheap user pays system as it encourages many users and there lies the biggest difference.
What will CASA be called after this next airspace adjustment? The number of title options seems to be diminishing. Funnily the US seems to have kept costs down there too, by limiting beaurocratic bungling hence not passing that cost on to the tax payer also.
I think I'll stay flying overseas...........
Too bad Dick and others involved in redesigning Australian airspace, (again), can not see that Australia is different to the rest of the world. The concept of user pays in a place where there are few users and getting less due to the same concept, will never work.
I agree it is fun to fly in the US, and that the system is simple. It also is on a very cheap user pays system as it encourages many users and there lies the biggest difference.
What will CASA be called after this next airspace adjustment? The number of title options seems to be diminishing. Funnily the US seems to have kept costs down there too, by limiting beaurocratic bungling hence not passing that cost on to the tax payer also.
I think I'll stay flying overseas...........
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bwahahahahahah
I love stirring you up!!!
The boating example (and I hold commercial quals there too) Not entirely true!!!
Give way, remember, same rule as in the sky, that is where our sky rules come from. Oh DOH!!!!
Straight in approach. Hmmm. Absolute lack of understanding of the Regs. You ain't allowed if there is conflicting traffic. Plain and simple. You don't own the sky. (try looking out the window too, it is pretty out there)
Transponder. Well I own 3. But why should I (except for commercial ops) if I don't operate CTR. You want PVT owners to have one, why shouldn't you or AsA pay for it.
I suppose you are gonna tell me truckies own the road system next!!!
Just can't wait.
Now let go and have a proper look. You guys keep this up and the political will of the PPL will shut you down, they are just smarter than you lot. Your demands are untenable and always have been. I figure most of you that accuse me of driving 152s have probably only driven anything bigger courtesy of Bill Gates.
Chuck
I love stirring you up!!!
The boating example (and I hold commercial quals there too) Not entirely true!!!
Give way, remember, same rule as in the sky, that is where our sky rules come from. Oh DOH!!!!
Straight in approach. Hmmm. Absolute lack of understanding of the Regs. You ain't allowed if there is conflicting traffic. Plain and simple. You don't own the sky. (try looking out the window too, it is pretty out there)
Transponder. Well I own 3. But why should I (except for commercial ops) if I don't operate CTR. You want PVT owners to have one, why shouldn't you or AsA pay for it.
I suppose you are gonna tell me truckies own the road system next!!!
Just can't wait.
Now let go and have a proper look. You guys keep this up and the political will of the PPL will shut you down, they are just smarter than you lot. Your demands are untenable and always have been. I figure most of you that accuse me of driving 152s have probably only driven anything bigger courtesy of Bill Gates.
Chuck
Last edited by Woomera; 13th Jun 2002 at 09:42.
Following is my response to posts up to 10 June. I will respond to later postings soon.
Creampuff, please call me Dick. I apologise for attributing the Class D comments to you.
You state,
I believe that the NAS model will be at least as safe, or safer, and I also believe it has the potential to be less expensive than the present airspace system. I do not believe NAS will be cheaper than the LAMP model, because the LAMP model removed the directed traffic service in all uncontrolled airspace.
In relation to the Class D type procedures that were used at the Grand Prix, if they were simply “planting road signs”, the bluff worked incredibly well. All the pilots I saw flying in and out were complying with the Class D air traffic control procedures. It would have been a game one who refused.
Piston_Broke, you state that a number of organisations agreed with the LAMP model and that I should give Ron McGrath a call. I phoned Ron McGrath and his statement was quite simple. He said the majority of the AWG agreed that the LAMP safety case should go to CASA. They agreed no more and no less. As we all know, the LAMP safety case was not accepted by CASA. Just how the LAMP AWG (including QF) could agree that jet airline aircraft would be performing instrument approaches in IMC without even the minimum of a directed traffic service, is beyond comprehension. Please forget the myth that I somehow stopped LAMP. It was stopped because the safety case was not approved and never would be.
You mention the fact that AD operators and airlines “do not want to pay for UNICOMs”. Do you really believe that is how safety improvements should be decided? In fact, there is no measurable cost for a UNICOM. Virtually every airport in the USA has a UNICOM at no cost. We have an effective UNICOM at Taree operated by the airline handling agent and it works superbly at no cost. The airlines already have a person at the airport who communicates with the airline on the private company frequency. Obviously there is no cost to move this transmitter to the CTAF/MBZ frequency. The claims about insurance are a complete myth. When Gerry McGowan of Impulse decided to operate a UNICOM at both Port Macquarie and Cooma, he contacted his insurance company who advised there would be no loading at all, as the service was only being provided to “improve safety” and therefore would reduce the chance of a claim for the airline.
Four Seven Eleven, you ask the most extraordinary questions but I have no idea who you are. Why are you so scared about identifying yourself? What are your achievements in life – do your peers consider you a success or a failure? Come clean in relation to who you really are and what your intentions are, and I will answer all of the questions immediately. Our forefathers fought for people to be able to speak their mind freely in this country. Why can’t you? I look forward to your advice.
Achilles, you ask,
The plan is to follow the US system. Please give me a call on 02 9450 0600 and I will explain it to you.
Capn Laptop, I have never stated, nor do I believe that
The NAS system will not have
It will follow the proven and very safe US system. No, I do not plan to shift the costs from one body to another.
You make disparaging comments in relation to the reforms I have introduced into aviation, however you hide behind anonymity. Surely you must have enough self-confidence and have achieved enough in life to be open and honest about your opinions, or are you pulling my leg?
To all contributors on this thread, all of the comments I have seen here could safely be attributed to any genuine person in an open and honest way. Why then hide your true names? Naturally people believe that you could be hiding your true beliefs. This whole secrecy thing seems (to me) to be more suited to Iraq than Australia. Could I challenge you to also register with your real names when you are commenting on issues that you truly believe in and are not frightened to be held accountable for?
Creampuff, please call me Dick. I apologise for attributing the Class D comments to you.
You state,
“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.”
In relation to the Class D type procedures that were used at the Grand Prix, if they were simply “planting road signs”, the bluff worked incredibly well. All the pilots I saw flying in and out were complying with the Class D air traffic control procedures. It would have been a game one who refused.
Piston_Broke, you state that a number of organisations agreed with the LAMP model and that I should give Ron McGrath a call. I phoned Ron McGrath and his statement was quite simple. He said the majority of the AWG agreed that the LAMP safety case should go to CASA. They agreed no more and no less. As we all know, the LAMP safety case was not accepted by CASA. Just how the LAMP AWG (including QF) could agree that jet airline aircraft would be performing instrument approaches in IMC without even the minimum of a directed traffic service, is beyond comprehension. Please forget the myth that I somehow stopped LAMP. It was stopped because the safety case was not approved and never would be.
You mention the fact that AD operators and airlines “do not want to pay for UNICOMs”. Do you really believe that is how safety improvements should be decided? In fact, there is no measurable cost for a UNICOM. Virtually every airport in the USA has a UNICOM at no cost. We have an effective UNICOM at Taree operated by the airline handling agent and it works superbly at no cost. The airlines already have a person at the airport who communicates with the airline on the private company frequency. Obviously there is no cost to move this transmitter to the CTAF/MBZ frequency. The claims about insurance are a complete myth. When Gerry McGowan of Impulse decided to operate a UNICOM at both Port Macquarie and Cooma, he contacted his insurance company who advised there would be no loading at all, as the service was only being provided to “improve safety” and therefore would reduce the chance of a claim for the airline.
Four Seven Eleven, you ask the most extraordinary questions but I have no idea who you are. Why are you so scared about identifying yourself? What are your achievements in life – do your peers consider you a success or a failure? Come clean in relation to who you really are and what your intentions are, and I will answer all of the questions immediately. Our forefathers fought for people to be able to speak their mind freely in this country. Why can’t you? I look forward to your advice.
Achilles, you ask,
“How will the Class G areas with DTI and Class G areas without DTI be identified (on ERCs, VTCs, NOTAMS, ERSA????)”
Capn Laptop, I have never stated, nor do I believe that
“Class E corridors will solve all our safety concerns”
“160 odd people operating into a mining strip with NO directed traffic, no SAR watch, nothing”
You make disparaging comments in relation to the reforms I have introduced into aviation, however you hide behind anonymity. Surely you must have enough self-confidence and have achieved enough in life to be open and honest about your opinions, or are you pulling my leg?
To all contributors on this thread, all of the comments I have seen here could safely be attributed to any genuine person in an open and honest way. Why then hide your true names? Naturally people believe that you could be hiding your true beliefs. This whole secrecy thing seems (to me) to be more suited to Iraq than Australia. Could I challenge you to also register with your real names when you are commenting on issues that you truly believe in and are not frightened to be held accountable for?
Why thanks Dick. That’s mighty neighbourly of you’all.
You may call me anything you like, ‘cept late for dinner.
However, it’s not very neighbourly to suggest that those who post anonymously are not genuine, open or honest. And the Iraq thing – you must be more than a little embarrassed to resort to those kinds of insults on people’s intelligence.
You’re clever enough to know that the validity of a proposition is not affected by the identity, motives, ethnicity or any other characteristic of the proposer.
I am particularly disappointed to note that you reserved your most distasteful distractions for the person who made what I consider to be some very valid propositions: 4711.
The difference between you and 4711 is that you are part of a process that has been initiated by the Commonwealth government, ostensibly in the interests of the Commonwealth. If you have some difficulty with the proposition that the ARG’s establishment and related airspace decision making processes should be publicly transparent and the participants publicly accountable, then just tell us why. I’m sure that 4711’s research skills are such that s/he could find no end of criticism by you of government decision making processes that are not transparent and of government decision makers who are unaccountable.
You state that:
Indeed. And the class G ‘trial’ bluff worked incredibly well, for a while anyway, notwithstanding that it was not authorised by law.
The pilots who observed the procedures at the Grand Prix had a reasonable expectation that a government agency would not be so irresponsible as to publish procedures that are not authorised by law. Yet we know it can happen – you proved it with the class G ‘trial’, and you seem still to be of the view that creating a class E corridor is simple as printing it on a chart.
You may call me anything you like, ‘cept late for dinner.
However, it’s not very neighbourly to suggest that those who post anonymously are not genuine, open or honest. And the Iraq thing – you must be more than a little embarrassed to resort to those kinds of insults on people’s intelligence.
You’re clever enough to know that the validity of a proposition is not affected by the identity, motives, ethnicity or any other characteristic of the proposer.
I am particularly disappointed to note that you reserved your most distasteful distractions for the person who made what I consider to be some very valid propositions: 4711.
The difference between you and 4711 is that you are part of a process that has been initiated by the Commonwealth government, ostensibly in the interests of the Commonwealth. If you have some difficulty with the proposition that the ARG’s establishment and related airspace decision making processes should be publicly transparent and the participants publicly accountable, then just tell us why. I’m sure that 4711’s research skills are such that s/he could find no end of criticism by you of government decision making processes that are not transparent and of government decision makers who are unaccountable.
You state that:
In relation to the Class D type procedures that were used at the Grand Prix, if they were simply "planting road signs", the bluff worked incredibly well. All the pilots I saw flying in and out were complying with the Class D air traffic control procedures. It would have been a game one who refused.
The pilots who observed the procedures at the Grand Prix had a reasonable expectation that a government agency would not be so irresponsible as to publish procedures that are not authorised by law. Yet we know it can happen – you proved it with the class G ‘trial’, and you seem still to be of the view that creating a class E corridor is simple as printing it on a chart.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Sydney
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of what has been said is very useful debate on this topic, regardless of whether we identify ourselves or not. Mind you, I do appreciate Mr Smith's identity and comments as he is involved at the very heart of NAS and his worldly experience with various ATC organisations.
Something to consider also is this for us is a nice outlet to discuss topics of interest that relate to our working lives. Its also good to able to say what we believe ( within limits ) without fear of court action or having to drag debate into our home time. I for one, do not want my work and home life to ever mix.. My wife and kids would also tend to agree. Mr Smith your work passions would seem to pervade your whole life and mix aplenty. At least accept that for some of us that will never happen. Likewise don't believe for a minute that we dont care about some of the things we say either.
Ohh and by the way my acheivements in life are only exciting in my family's eyes.
Something to consider also is this for us is a nice outlet to discuss topics of interest that relate to our working lives. Its also good to able to say what we believe ( within limits ) without fear of court action or having to drag debate into our home time. I for one, do not want my work and home life to ever mix.. My wife and kids would also tend to agree. Mr Smith your work passions would seem to pervade your whole life and mix aplenty. At least accept that for some of us that will never happen. Likewise don't believe for a minute that we dont care about some of the things we say either.
Ohh and by the way my acheivements in life are only exciting in my family's eyes.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little sensitive, Mr Smith?
Mr Smith. Good to see you back. Shame about the lack of willingness to answer the questions, though.
The "most extraordinary questions" about a publicly funded panel amount to the following:
"Did you have a conflict of interest?", "Have you been offered a job?" and "Will you make the process public?"
Why are the answers to these questions dependant upon the identity of a single individual? The answers would be of interest to all in the aviation community - at least in Australia - and any Australian citizen interested in the appropriate functioning of our public institutions. Would these questions be any more or less relevant if they were being asked in a Senate Estimates committee?
I am not "scared" of identifying myself. You have entered an environment (PPRuNe) which was established in 1995. The rules, including the ability to post anonymously have existed for a lot longer than your membership. It is a little precious to start trying to change the rules when you have just joined up.
Now what kind of a question is that? I can't believe the debate has descended to this. However, for what it's worth:-
My achievements in life are many and varied. My peers consider me inter alia: a success, a poor fisherman, the world's second worst golfer, a laugh a minute, a grumpy old sod, the world's second ugliest air traffic controller, a very skilled air traffic controller, a very lucky air traffic controller and many more. I have asked, and none consider me a failure (except those who have seen me play golf!).
Surprisingly perhaps, the above has not changed the content or intent of my questions one bit.
Who I really am: An air traffic controller, a pilot, a father, a husband, a private citizen and taxpayer of Australia. No, I will not reveal my name on a public bulletin board which has been specifically set up as an anonymous one. You chose to enter this environment. Those are the rules. Deal with it.
This forum (something like Australian Parliamentary democracy) has been around for some time and works well. You cannot merely walk in and impose your own rules just because you are wealthy and have the ear of our politicians. (Now...was I talking about PPRuNE or the Australian Parliament.........?)
My intentions, however, I am quite happy to speak about. I am interested in ensuring that Australia has the best aviation system possible. I am interested in preserving a democratic system that is open and honest.
I am not opposed to the NAS system. Having read it, I think that it could actually work. I am suspicious however, that its author was reluctant to let it stand on its own merits in an impartial assessment.
The history of airspace 'reform' in this country is not a proud one. I had hoped that for once, wealth, politics and influence might take second place to an open process.
I am speaking quite freely thank you very much. And while you're at it, it wasn’t just our forefathers either. I have been on the wrong end of an AK47 myself, defending exactly that same right. Funny thing about 'rights' though, when someone tries to 'force' you to exercise a right, it is no longer a right at all.
I can. I choose not to.
I note that you have previously answered questions from 'anonymous' posters, or invited others to contact you from public telephones, without revealing their names etc. Why is my identity of such great interest to you? Could it possibly be the nature of the questions?
My questions remain unchanged............. and unanswered. (Repeated 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?
Four Seven Eleven, you ask the most extraordinary questions but I have no idea who you are.
"Did you have a conflict of interest?", "Have you been offered a job?" and "Will you make the process public?"
Why are the answers to these questions dependant upon the identity of a single individual? The answers would be of interest to all in the aviation community - at least in Australia - and any Australian citizen interested in the appropriate functioning of our public institutions. Would these questions be any more or less relevant if they were being asked in a Senate Estimates committee?
Why are you so scared about identifying yourself?
What are your achievements in life – do your peers consider you a success or a failure?
My achievements in life are many and varied. My peers consider me inter alia: a success, a poor fisherman, the world's second worst golfer, a laugh a minute, a grumpy old sod, the world's second ugliest air traffic controller, a very skilled air traffic controller, a very lucky air traffic controller and many more. I have asked, and none consider me a failure (except those who have seen me play golf!).
Surprisingly perhaps, the above has not changed the content or intent of my questions one bit.
Come clean in relation to who you really are and what your intentions are, and I will answer all of the questions immediately.
This forum (something like Australian Parliamentary democracy) has been around for some time and works well. You cannot merely walk in and impose your own rules just because you are wealthy and have the ear of our politicians. (Now...was I talking about PPRuNE or the Australian Parliament.........?)
My intentions, however, I am quite happy to speak about. I am interested in ensuring that Australia has the best aviation system possible. I am interested in preserving a democratic system that is open and honest.
I am not opposed to the NAS system. Having read it, I think that it could actually work. I am suspicious however, that its author was reluctant to let it stand on its own merits in an impartial assessment.
The history of airspace 'reform' in this country is not a proud one. I had hoped that for once, wealth, politics and influence might take second place to an open process.
Our forefathers fought for people to be able to speak their mind freely in this country.
Why can’t you? I look forward to your advice.
I note that you have previously answered questions from 'anonymous' posters, or invited others to contact you from public telephones, without revealing their names etc. Why is my identity of such great interest to you? Could it possibly be the nature of the questions?
My questions remain unchanged............. and unanswered. (Repeated 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?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anonimity
I consider your tactic of shifting the play to the man, rather than the ball, fairly churlish. I had more respect for you than that. In fact, I may have to review my offer to consider being employed as an advisor (and I still haven't received the offer documents!!).
Please address the questions and concerns raised (at least about the NAS model. I think most of us know how and why things get done )
It is sad to have to report to you, Mr Smith, that lots of us do work under conditions where convergent thinking is smiled upon, and differing in opinion from the corporate philosophy of the day will have implications for your career. More concerning is the various punishments involved in airing dirty laundry in a public forum such as this.
In Iraq, they may not have the luxury of the internet.
Please address the questions and concerns raised (at least about the NAS model. I think most of us know how and why things get done
)It is sad to have to report to you, Mr Smith, that lots of us do work under conditions where convergent thinking is smiled upon, and differing in opinion from the corporate philosophy of the day will have implications for your career. More concerning is the various punishments involved in airing dirty laundry in a public forum such as this.
In Iraq, they may not have the luxury of the internet.
on your FM dial
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith,
Thank you for your post in response to my earlier query about your reference to non-radar control zones in the UK, and airline aircraft descending on a “see and avoid basis” in class G airspace.
As it happens, I don’t really need to telephone the tower at Plymouth to ask them all about it because I have a colleague who’s spouse is employed in the Air Traffic Service Unit there.
I can accept that Brymon Airways Dash 8s operate into Plymouth City (but not for much longer as the route has been terminated) and that there is no approved radar data provided to the ATSU at Plymouth City Airport.
But I suggest to you that Plymouth is not a Control Zone. Rather, Plymouth City Airport is an Aerodrome Traffic Zone (ATZ). The UK Manual of Air Traffic Services says that an ATZ adopts the class of airspace surrounding it, in the case of Plymouth, class G.
I agree that a Lower Airspace Radar Service (LARS) in the Plymouth City area (west of airway A25, below FL95) can be provided by “Plymouth Military” on VHF 121.25 during their hours of operation.
But I disagree that Brymon Airways Dash 8s from London would have no option but to descend into Plymouth without any radar service (in cloud, with their fingers crossed, because not all IFR traffic is known) when the Plymouth Military LARS is not available.
Aircraft descending into Plymouth City from the east (ie from London) can also get LARS from Exeter on VHF 128.15. This LARS could, at the discretion of the flight crew, be in the form of a Radar Advisory Service (RAS) or Radar Information Service (RIS).
The published hours of operation of the Exeter ATSU encompass all the hours of operation of Plymouth City Airport, plus more – ie there is no time that an airline aircraft would be inbound to Plymouth when Exeter ATSU would not be open for business.
I suggest that Plymouth is not a control zone, and that airline aircraft inbound to Plymouth are able to obtain a radar service.
Which other UK non-radar control zones have you been to?
Mr Smith, I have admired and respected you for the determined and tenacious way you have come onto pprune to explain the new Australian airspace system. I have particularly noted that your posts have been, for the most part, well-argued and respectful of other participants. I was wondering if you had started to mellow with age. You have indeed come a long way since that little shop in St Leonards.
But I am troubled by the disappointing tone of your 14th June 2002 06:52 post, which, in my view, shows signs of a somewhat brash attitude - which has, I suggest, alienated a number of key players in the Australian aviation industry in the past.
Mr Smith, pprune is a tough audience.
I would even go so far as to suggest that pprune may, at times, be a tougher room to work than a Senate Estimates Committee, a Staunton Royal Commission, or a CASA Board meeting.
You can’t bullsh*t on pprune. Somewhere out there in cyberspace there will be a specialist who has the ability to differentiate between the wheat and the chaff. You must expect, when you post on pprune, that your posts will be scrutinised by experts, and that you will be challenged on any perceived incongruities.
Mr Smith, it is your prerogative to choose to identify yourself on pprune. It is others prerogative to choose not to. You must understand this. Please do not belittle others. To do so detracts considerably from your argument.
Whilst there will always be a small minority of rat bags on these pages, I suggest to you that the vast majority of pprune participants are genuine, and are stake-holders who’s very lives, as well as livelihoods, depend upon getting the Australian airspace procedures right.
I think we would all agree with you that getting the airspace right is both a safety and an economic imperative.
Thank you for your post in response to my earlier query about your reference to non-radar control zones in the UK, and airline aircraft descending on a “see and avoid basis” in class G airspace.
As it happens, I don’t really need to telephone the tower at Plymouth to ask them all about it because I have a colleague who’s spouse is employed in the Air Traffic Service Unit there.
I can accept that Brymon Airways Dash 8s operate into Plymouth City (but not for much longer as the route has been terminated) and that there is no approved radar data provided to the ATSU at Plymouth City Airport.
But I suggest to you that Plymouth is not a Control Zone. Rather, Plymouth City Airport is an Aerodrome Traffic Zone (ATZ). The UK Manual of Air Traffic Services says that an ATZ adopts the class of airspace surrounding it, in the case of Plymouth, class G.
I agree that a Lower Airspace Radar Service (LARS) in the Plymouth City area (west of airway A25, below FL95) can be provided by “Plymouth Military” on VHF 121.25 during their hours of operation.
But I disagree that Brymon Airways Dash 8s from London would have no option but to descend into Plymouth without any radar service (in cloud, with their fingers crossed, because not all IFR traffic is known) when the Plymouth Military LARS is not available.
Aircraft descending into Plymouth City from the east (ie from London) can also get LARS from Exeter on VHF 128.15. This LARS could, at the discretion of the flight crew, be in the form of a Radar Advisory Service (RAS) or Radar Information Service (RIS).
The published hours of operation of the Exeter ATSU encompass all the hours of operation of Plymouth City Airport, plus more – ie there is no time that an airline aircraft would be inbound to Plymouth when Exeter ATSU would not be open for business.
I suggest that Plymouth is not a control zone, and that airline aircraft inbound to Plymouth are able to obtain a radar service.
Which other UK non-radar control zones have you been to?
Mr Smith, I have admired and respected you for the determined and tenacious way you have come onto pprune to explain the new Australian airspace system. I have particularly noted that your posts have been, for the most part, well-argued and respectful of other participants. I was wondering if you had started to mellow with age. You have indeed come a long way since that little shop in St Leonards.
But I am troubled by the disappointing tone of your 14th June 2002 06:52 post, which, in my view, shows signs of a somewhat brash attitude - which has, I suggest, alienated a number of key players in the Australian aviation industry in the past.
Mr Smith, pprune is a tough audience.
I would even go so far as to suggest that pprune may, at times, be a tougher room to work than a Senate Estimates Committee, a Staunton Royal Commission, or a CASA Board meeting.
You can’t bullsh*t on pprune. Somewhere out there in cyberspace there will be a specialist who has the ability to differentiate between the wheat and the chaff. You must expect, when you post on pprune, that your posts will be scrutinised by experts, and that you will be challenged on any perceived incongruities.
Mr Smith, it is your prerogative to choose to identify yourself on pprune. It is others prerogative to choose not to. You must understand this. Please do not belittle others. To do so detracts considerably from your argument.
Whilst there will always be a small minority of rat bags on these pages, I suggest to you that the vast majority of pprune participants are genuine, and are stake-holders who’s very lives, as well as livelihoods, depend upon getting the Australian airspace procedures right.
I think we would all agree with you that getting the airspace right is both a safety and an economic imperative.
Last edited by BIK_116.80; 14th Jun 2002 at 15:06.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Identity and conscience
Mr Smith
I have sent a copy of the questions which you refuse to answer to Mr Martin Ferguson AM,MP (Shadow Minister for Regional and Urban Development, Transport and Infrastructure)
I have offered to identify myself to Mr Ferguson if required.
In addition, I have asked Mr Ferguson to seek answers to the questions which I have asked through the appropriate parliamentary channels.
Please feel free to answer them here anytime you like.
Let your conscience be your guide.
I have sent a copy of the questions which you refuse to answer to Mr Martin Ferguson AM,MP (Shadow Minister for Regional and Urban Development, Transport and Infrastructure)
I have offered to identify myself to Mr Ferguson if required.
In addition, I have asked Mr Ferguson to seek answers to the questions which I have asked through the appropriate parliamentary channels.
Please feel free to answer them here anytime you like.
Let your conscience be your guide.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disappointing!! although not suprising...
Cannot see why disclosure is reliant on identification!!Next installment "might" be interesting!?!?!?
Iraq????
Hmm.. Is that Avtur I can Smell...
Deddle..Deddle..Deddle.....Woka..Woka..Woka
Sounds like those "Dickheads matches" might have finally turned up!!........Quick Darl, grab the Kids and make a dash for the Fiat whilst I find those Claymores!!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith
PPRuNe is a difficult concept which to come to grips, but its success is nonpareil with over 50,000 members and rising not too bad if it were a professional publication.
I carry the burden of moderating this particular forum, which is considered to be one of the more difficult and troublesome, by the nature of its robust debate and to try and keep it civilised and relevant.
I also get all the email flak from members, when it, or someone, is perceived to have gone off the rails and as my work is voluntary, as is the WHOLE of PPRuNe it makes my life much busier than it already is.
As an example Mr Pike from AOPA came blundering in here a short time ago and by adopting a fairly high handed manner, particularly in relation to the anonymity issue, managed to isolate himself and his cause from almost every one here, most of whom were really genuinely interested in the AOPA view and looking forward to a discussion of it.
It would appear as we have not seen him since, that they, AOPA do not feel it necessary or useful to attempt to convert non AOPA members to their received wisdom or cause.
That is a great pity because there is much that they and we can learn from each other.
Your presence and the time and interest you have taken with your input here are much appreciated, as it is from all our other busy members.
However I was wondering what to do about the negative press you have drawn to yourself and my email box in regard to your attitude towards some of our respected members and the anonymity that is treasured and honoured herein and was pondering a missive to you on the difficulty in understanding that concept.
But as so often happens here there is always someone out there, wiser and more erudite on a particular issue than us.
I know BIK_116.80 will not mind if I reiterate the last part of his post, as he says it as well as it can be, in regard to understanding the true nature of PPRuNe.
We really are delighted that you now share this forum with us and we sincerely hope that you will receive the same benefits and insight from it that we all have over the years.
We know that you will here meet some very interesting, fascinating and talented people, some of whom, no doubt, that you will recognise, all of whom have had, or are still enjoying all manner of amazing achievements and events in their lives.
Because of their profession, they are not easily impressed and most posess that truly larrikin but sardonic Australianess that can be and is easily misunderstood by others from elsewhere in PPRuNedom, but I can gaurantee, that a bit of patience in putting your view and winning their respect is rewarded by huge heaps of very genuine, positive and extremely well informed feedback and respect in return.
Heck we even have some fun just being amongst that brotherhood of crazy aviators.
Enjoy.
PPRuNe is a difficult concept which to come to grips, but its success is nonpareil with over 50,000 members and rising not too bad if it were a professional publication.
I carry the burden of moderating this particular forum, which is considered to be one of the more difficult and troublesome, by the nature of its robust debate and to try and keep it civilised and relevant.
I also get all the email flak from members, when it, or someone, is perceived to have gone off the rails and as my work is voluntary, as is the WHOLE of PPRuNe it makes my life much busier than it already is.
As an example Mr Pike from AOPA came blundering in here a short time ago and by adopting a fairly high handed manner, particularly in relation to the anonymity issue, managed to isolate himself and his cause from almost every one here, most of whom were really genuinely interested in the AOPA view and looking forward to a discussion of it.
It would appear as we have not seen him since, that they, AOPA do not feel it necessary or useful to attempt to convert non AOPA members to their received wisdom or cause.
That is a great pity because there is much that they and we can learn from each other.
Your presence and the time and interest you have taken with your input here are much appreciated, as it is from all our other busy members.
However I was wondering what to do about the negative press you have drawn to yourself and my email box in regard to your attitude towards some of our respected members and the anonymity that is treasured and honoured herein and was pondering a missive to you on the difficulty in understanding that concept.
But as so often happens here there is always someone out there, wiser and more erudite on a particular issue than us.
I know BIK_116.80 will not mind if I reiterate the last part of his post, as he says it as well as it can be, in regard to understanding the true nature of PPRuNe.
Mr Smith, pprune is a tough audience.
I would even go so far as to suggest that pprune may, at times, be a tougher room to work than a Senate Estimates Committee, a Staunton Royal Commission, or a CASA Board meeting.
You can’t bullsh*t on pprune. Somewhere out there in cyberspace there will be a specialist who has the ability to differentiate between the wheat and the chaff. You must expect, when you post on pprune, that your posts will be scrutinised by experts, and that you will be challenged on any perceived incongruities.
Mr Smith, it is your prerogative to choose to identify yourself on pprune. It is others prerogative to choose not to. You must understand this. Please do not belittle others. To do so detracts considerably from your argument.
Whilst there will always be a small minority of rat bags on these pages, I suggest to you that the vast majority of pprune participants are genuine, and are stake-holders who’s very lives, as well as livelihoods, depend upon getting the Australian airspace procedures right.
I think we would all agree with you that getting the airspace right is both a safety and an economic imperative.
I would even go so far as to suggest that pprune may, at times, be a tougher room to work than a Senate Estimates Committee, a Staunton Royal Commission, or a CASA Board meeting.
You can’t bullsh*t on pprune. Somewhere out there in cyberspace there will be a specialist who has the ability to differentiate between the wheat and the chaff. You must expect, when you post on pprune, that your posts will be scrutinised by experts, and that you will be challenged on any perceived incongruities.
Mr Smith, it is your prerogative to choose to identify yourself on pprune. It is others prerogative to choose not to. You must understand this. Please do not belittle others. To do so detracts considerably from your argument.
Whilst there will always be a small minority of rat bags on these pages, I suggest to you that the vast majority of pprune participants are genuine, and are stake-holders who’s very lives, as well as livelihoods, depend upon getting the Australian airspace procedures right.
I think we would all agree with you that getting the airspace right is both a safety and an economic imperative.
We know that you will here meet some very interesting, fascinating and talented people, some of whom, no doubt, that you will recognise, all of whom have had, or are still enjoying all manner of amazing achievements and events in their lives.
Because of their profession, they are not easily impressed and most posess that truly larrikin but sardonic Australianess that can be and is easily misunderstood by others from elsewhere in PPRuNedom, but I can gaurantee, that a bit of patience in putting your view and winning their respect is rewarded by huge heaps of very genuine, positive and extremely well informed feedback and respect in return.
Heck we even have some fun just being amongst that brotherhood of crazy aviators.
Enjoy.
Last edited by Woomera; 17th Jun 2002 at 10:42.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith
Just to rebuff afew false facts that you have posted so far.
1. CASA did not, I say again DID NOT reject the llamp safety case. They never publisher their findings. Some in CASA privately indicated that they where not happy with the size of MBZ's due to not being inline with Part 71. Something the AWG could have looked at over time if the time was given to them.
2. If as you say the NAS will cost more than llamp. Where does $50M come from? AsA always stated that the savings in llamp was only $11M at the most. Where does the other $39M come from?
3. You do not want to see IFR conducting let downs in IMC without DTI, as proposed in llamp. Sorry to see that you have no understanding of the present airspace. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS AT THE MOMENT, ITS CALLED MBZ PROCEDURES.
Please Mr Smith, we here are not the gullable public hanging on your every word. We actually know what we are talking about. If you want to play with us, stop bu#$^%ing, give us some clear acurate debate and answer the questions given to you!
Just to rebuff afew false facts that you have posted so far.
1. CASA did not, I say again DID NOT reject the llamp safety case. They never publisher their findings. Some in CASA privately indicated that they where not happy with the size of MBZ's due to not being inline with Part 71. Something the AWG could have looked at over time if the time was given to them.
2. If as you say the NAS will cost more than llamp. Where does $50M come from? AsA always stated that the savings in llamp was only $11M at the most. Where does the other $39M come from?
3. You do not want to see IFR conducting let downs in IMC without DTI, as proposed in llamp. Sorry to see that you have no understanding of the present airspace. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS AT THE MOMENT, ITS CALLED MBZ PROCEDURES.
Please Mr Smith, we here are not the gullable public hanging on your every word. We actually know what we are talking about. If you want to play with us, stop bu#$^%ing, give us some clear acurate debate and answer the questions given to you!
2dogs.... The safety case for LLAMP perhaps did not progress fully through CASA because it did not meet their requirements. It does not matter how you say it, but at the end of the day it would not have got the required tick in the box.
During the process, CASA openly stated that any increase in MBZ size or mandatory radio areas in G was not an option. This as you would know was part of the LLAMP proposal, so it would have failed there as well.
There have been some good comments on this thread, but I think it best we play the ball and not the man.
creampuff.. there is no doubt who has the "power" over airspace but I suggest if the Minister says do something it would be a game CEO at AsA that would go down another path. (not that I have any faith in the seniors at AsA anyway)
capcom.. No I am not in ATC. I really don't think that Bernie S has anything to be "proud" of.. He should work on the 's' becoming a 'S' and not a $..!!.
4711 I think it matters not what the circumstances have been in relation to how the NAS was selected by the Minister. Dick was a proponent and supporter of the plan and this was well known from day one. The Minister this week has laid down some clear guidelines to all involved including Dick on how the process should work. A meeting on Thursday discussed many of these issues. DoTRS still seem to think they are in control and know what it is all about, but I doubt that to some extent. Again there are many experts out there but to date none have been invited to comment or participate. If they fail to do that then it will be all the more difficult to make any progress with NAS.
This past week has seen a senior CASA manager appointed to the group to progress the NAS plan. No details have yet been provided on the structure of the Airspace Directorate, but that we are informed, might occur in July. The ads for the positions will be interesting..
ulm.. if you choose not to have a transponder that is your choice, but it would be to your advantage to have one and to have it ON no matter where you are. There are no winners in a mid-air, its loose/loose. Sometimes it is good to have a few cards in your favour and an operating transponder is a good one to have.
I think it is about time we accepted the fact that there is going to be change and get on with making the change as positive as possible. I do agree that we must see some independent costing on the proposals and the change process. Some of it will cost big time but other bits will save. We must see this first.
During the process, CASA openly stated that any increase in MBZ size or mandatory radio areas in G was not an option. This as you would know was part of the LLAMP proposal, so it would have failed there as well.
There have been some good comments on this thread, but I think it best we play the ball and not the man.
creampuff.. there is no doubt who has the "power" over airspace but I suggest if the Minister says do something it would be a game CEO at AsA that would go down another path. (not that I have any faith in the seniors at AsA anyway)
capcom.. No I am not in ATC. I really don't think that Bernie S has anything to be "proud" of.. He should work on the 's' becoming a 'S' and not a $..!!.
4711 I think it matters not what the circumstances have been in relation to how the NAS was selected by the Minister. Dick was a proponent and supporter of the plan and this was well known from day one. The Minister this week has laid down some clear guidelines to all involved including Dick on how the process should work. A meeting on Thursday discussed many of these issues. DoTRS still seem to think they are in control and know what it is all about, but I doubt that to some extent. Again there are many experts out there but to date none have been invited to comment or participate. If they fail to do that then it will be all the more difficult to make any progress with NAS.
This past week has seen a senior CASA manager appointed to the group to progress the NAS plan. No details have yet been provided on the structure of the Airspace Directorate, but that we are informed, might occur in July. The ads for the positions will be interesting..
ulm.. if you choose not to have a transponder that is your choice, but it would be to your advantage to have one and to have it ON no matter where you are. There are no winners in a mid-air, its loose/loose. Sometimes it is good to have a few cards in your favour and an operating transponder is a good one to have.
I think it is about time we accepted the fact that there is going to be change and get on with making the change as positive as possible. I do agree that we must see some independent costing on the proposals and the change process. Some of it will cost big time but other bits will save. We must see this first.
Last edited by cogwheel; 14th Jun 2002 at 15:56.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, democracy does matter.....
Cogwheel
I happen to think it matters a lot. No surprises there, I guess.
We live in a society in which we entrust certain duties to our elected representatives. When, for example, our government is called upon to decide between two competing tenderers before spending our money, we insist on an open, accountable tendering process, Any conflicts of interest are to be declared, and the process proceeds in as impartial a manner as is possible.
In the case of airspace reform, we are talking about the expenditure of billions of taxpayers' dollars. Somehow, Dick Smith has been able to become:
1) The author of a a reform proposal; and
2) The chairman of a panel to choose a 'winner'; and
3) When his proposal won (surprise!!!!) - part of an 'implementation' panel.
Now, what could be more cosy than that?
Maybe he can make our trains run on time too!
4711 I think it matters not what the circumstances have been in relation to how the NAS was selected by the Minister.
We live in a society in which we entrust certain duties to our elected representatives. When, for example, our government is called upon to decide between two competing tenderers before spending our money, we insist on an open, accountable tendering process, Any conflicts of interest are to be declared, and the process proceeds in as impartial a manner as is possible.
In the case of airspace reform, we are talking about the expenditure of billions of taxpayers' dollars. Somehow, Dick Smith has been able to become:
1) The author of a a reform proposal; and
2) The chairman of a panel to choose a 'winner'; and
3) When his proposal won (surprise!!!!) - part of an 'implementation' panel.
Now, what could be more cosy than that?
Maybe he can make our trains run on time too!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Supplementary if I may.....
Mr Smith said:
No Cost to Whom? Someone pays for it! (Wages, equipment etc) Airlines? Government?…
With the greatest respect to those who provide traffic “clues” in Unicom’s!
- Can traffic rely on the Airline Staff to be available when needed to provide such services when presumably they have a myriad of other tasks to perform?
- Will Unicom operator X from ABC Airlines prioritise working the Unicom for ALL in the Airspace or would Company responsibilities inhibit their ability to do that? (Authority to act as a Unicom operator I assume/hope requires the provider to adhere to minimum requirements in relation to availability of service on demand, equipment maintenance etc! again someone will pay for the additional responsibilities!)
- No cost to move to CTAF?MBZ frequency? Documents, Maps, training etc etc, No Cost??? perhaps you might expand???
-Could you provide the Safety and Cost benefit analysis that would support Unicoms in this form over FS?
From a related thread, goes to qualification to decide Airspace Matters!
If your expertise is Business efficiency why do you deserve my support for your plan to have people from commercial entities effectively forced to provide something they likely know little about? ie the practical application of effective services to industry?
Attack? No robust relevant and very serious questions that require answering!!
We are leaders in the world…For years that has been the Maxim by which we all participate in the Aviation system in OZ, however it is becoming harder and harder to keep plugging an already leaking dyke!!
If your plan (In its present form) gets legs! I hope that the necessary staff and infrastructure are in place, trained properly and set to go BEFORE we go picking start dates for the next revolution!!!!
In fact, there is no measurable cost for a UNICOM. Virtually every airport in the USA has a UNICOM at no cost.
We have an effective UNICOM at Taree operated by the airline handling agent and it works superbly at no cost. The airlines already have a person at the airport who communicates with the airline on the private company frequency. Obviously there is no cost to move this transmitter to the CTAF/MBZ frequency.
- Can traffic rely on the Airline Staff to be available when needed to provide such services when presumably they have a myriad of other tasks to perform?
- Will Unicom operator X from ABC Airlines prioritise working the Unicom for ALL in the Airspace or would Company responsibilities inhibit their ability to do that? (Authority to act as a Unicom operator I assume/hope requires the provider to adhere to minimum requirements in relation to availability of service on demand, equipment maintenance etc! again someone will pay for the additional responsibilities!)
- No cost to move to CTAF?MBZ frequency? Documents, Maps, training etc etc, No Cost??? perhaps you might expand???
-Could you provide the Safety and Cost benefit analysis that would support Unicoms in this form over FS?
From a related thread, goes to qualification to decide Airspace Matters!
Dick Smith
Just another number
posted 14th May 2002 00:28
I can assure you that the agenda is airspace, not industrial relations. I’m not at all dangerous. I’m simply an Australian who has done well out of this country and wants to put something back in. I notice that Elton John is treated well because of the work he does with AIDS research. It seems a pity to me that when my expertise is business efficiency, that you have to attack me in this way. I am absolutely horrified with the number of people who are out of work in aviation. We could be leaders in the world. For this to happen we need to move to modern, efficient practices. Not just in airspace, but with all our regulations. That is what I will be working towards.
Just another number
posted 14th May 2002 00:28
I can assure you that the agenda is airspace, not industrial relations. I’m not at all dangerous. I’m simply an Australian who has done well out of this country and wants to put something back in. I notice that Elton John is treated well because of the work he does with AIDS research. It seems a pity to me that when my expertise is business efficiency, that you have to attack me in this way. I am absolutely horrified with the number of people who are out of work in aviation. We could be leaders in the world. For this to happen we need to move to modern, efficient practices. Not just in airspace, but with all our regulations. That is what I will be working towards.
Attack? No robust relevant and very serious questions that require answering!!
We are leaders in the world…For years that has been the Maxim by which we all participate in the Aviation system in OZ, however it is becoming harder and harder to keep plugging an already leaking dyke!!
If your plan (In its present form) gets legs! I hope that the necessary staff and infrastructure are in place, trained properly and set to go BEFORE we go picking start dates for the next revolution!!!!