New airspace: Dick Smith
For completeness’ sake.
From the Official Committee Hansard of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee hearing of 1 May 2000 pages 6 to 7, available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s967.pdf
This is the Pollard advice referred to by Senator O’Brien, from the Official Committee Hansard of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee hearing of 1 December 1999 at pages 107 and 109, available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s2803.pdf
[Edited to make clear that the "Mr Smith" in this Hansard was Mr Bernie Smith, not Dick.
…
Senator O’BRIEN—... There are a couple of questions that I have stemming from points that you made. If I understood you correctly, it has now been clearly established that it is Airservices and not CASA who have the responsibility of designing and implementing new air space arrangements. Is that correct?
Mr [Bernie] Smith—No, Senator. The responsibility is Airservices. CASA have the responsibility to assess the safety.
Senator O’BRIEN—Airservices, not CASA, have that responsibility?
Mr Smith—Yes, correct.
Senator O’BRIEN—And that is consistent with the advice that Airservices had some time ago during the G class air space trial.
Mr Smith—I am not sure what advice you are referring to.
Senator O’BRIEN—It was the advice that we received from Mr Pollard on 1 December last year regarding that situation in estimates on 1 December. I do not have a page reference. In any case, we have cleared that up. It has therefore been established that CASA had no legal basis to run the G class trial, but it went ahead and did that because Airservices was busy with the TAAAT system implementation. Is that correct?
Mr Smith—Airservices had, at that time, taken a decision that to try and run an air space reform program, or to initiate such a program, whilst introducing such a large and complex system was not in the best interests of the industry.
Senator O’BRIEN—Did you say Airservices had taken that decision?
Mr Smith—Airservices took that decision.
…
Senator O’BRIEN—... There are a couple of questions that I have stemming from points that you made. If I understood you correctly, it has now been clearly established that it is Airservices and not CASA who have the responsibility of designing and implementing new air space arrangements. Is that correct?
Mr [Bernie] Smith—No, Senator. The responsibility is Airservices. CASA have the responsibility to assess the safety.
Senator O’BRIEN—Airservices, not CASA, have that responsibility?
Mr Smith—Yes, correct.
Senator O’BRIEN—And that is consistent with the advice that Airservices had some time ago during the G class air space trial.
Mr Smith—I am not sure what advice you are referring to.
Senator O’BRIEN—It was the advice that we received from Mr Pollard on 1 December last year regarding that situation in estimates on 1 December. I do not have a page reference. In any case, we have cleared that up. It has therefore been established that CASA had no legal basis to run the G class trial, but it went ahead and did that because Airservices was busy with the TAAAT system implementation. Is that correct?
Mr Smith—Airservices had, at that time, taken a decision that to try and run an air space reform program, or to initiate such a program, whilst introducing such a large and complex system was not in the best interests of the industry.
Senator O’BRIEN—Did you say Airservices had taken that decision?
Mr Smith—Airservices took that decision.
…
…
Senator O’BRIEN—Dr Hawke refers to advice from the Australian Government Solicitor to that effect in his report of 22 December 1998. Has Airservices Australia sought any legal advice on this point?
Mr Pollard—We had casual legal advice, I guess, internally, but we were also aware of the advice from the Attorney’s solicitor.
Senator O’BRIEN—So the casual legal advice is consistent, in your knowledge, with the advice from the Australian Government Solicitor?
Mr Pollard—Yes, it was. It was basically that we could not delegate that requirement. It would require a change to the CASA act and perhaps even the Air Services Act.
…
Senator O’BRIEN—Was there any ministerial direction that you are aware of to transfer the functional responsibility for airspace from Airservices to CASA?
Mr Pollard—There was no ministerial direction. I think at one time there was intent but no direction.
Senator O’BRIEN—Is Airservices aware of whether it is able to legally delegate its authority with regard to management design of airspace?
Mr Pollard—The advice I referred to earlier says that we cannot delegate it.
Senator O’BRIEN—Is Airservices aware of any broad legal loophole to let CASA run the trial instead of Airservices?
Mr Pollard—No, I am not aware of any.
…
Senator O’BRIEN—Dr Hawke refers to advice from the Australian Government Solicitor to that effect in his report of 22 December 1998. Has Airservices Australia sought any legal advice on this point?
Mr Pollard—We had casual legal advice, I guess, internally, but we were also aware of the advice from the Attorney’s solicitor.
Senator O’BRIEN—So the casual legal advice is consistent, in your knowledge, with the advice from the Australian Government Solicitor?
Mr Pollard—Yes, it was. It was basically that we could not delegate that requirement. It would require a change to the CASA act and perhaps even the Air Services Act.
…
Senator O’BRIEN—Was there any ministerial direction that you are aware of to transfer the functional responsibility for airspace from Airservices to CASA?
Mr Pollard—There was no ministerial direction. I think at one time there was intent but no direction.
Senator O’BRIEN—Is Airservices aware of whether it is able to legally delegate its authority with regard to management design of airspace?
Mr Pollard—The advice I referred to earlier says that we cannot delegate it.
Senator O’BRIEN—Is Airservices aware of any broad legal loophole to let CASA run the trial instead of Airservices?
Mr Pollard—No, I am not aware of any.
…
Last edited by Creampuff; 15th Jun 2002 at 09:11.
The indication from Airservices late last year was that LAMP would probably result in cost savings of $10M-$15M/year.
Dick Smith:
That's it then - you've shot yourself in the foot. The $50M/year saving has gone out the window.
Can we go home now?
Dick Smith:
I do not believe NAS will be cheaper than the LAMP model
Can we go home now?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh My.....That explains a lot !!
Creampuff – Thankyou, I was not aware that had been said..
Raises other issues of duplicity on behalf of the Suits within AsA at the time of the G trial:
- If as Pollard said, they were aware of the G trial and that a delegation to CASA had not been legal or attempted or approved by AsA, why then did AsA not “hark-up”?, moreover allow their staff and the travelling public to participate in the debacle?
No wonder Pollard went “Stateside”!!!
- Smith clearly had no intention of following Due Process then nor was anyone in the Senior Management of CASA and AsA or Gov’t going to stand in his way although they all appeared aware he was “Winging it” illegally!!!
Disgraceful, inappropriate illegal behavior at the highest levels!!!
Seems we have every reason to be very concerned about “Above the law” status given to him in relation to these airspace matters!!!
Are the Fed Gov't that stupid twice?? I suppose that depends on how much Smith "Owns" them!!!!
Raises other issues of duplicity on behalf of the Suits within AsA at the time of the G trial:
- If as Pollard said, they were aware of the G trial and that a delegation to CASA had not been legal or attempted or approved by AsA, why then did AsA not “hark-up”?, moreover allow their staff and the travelling public to participate in the debacle?
No wonder Pollard went “Stateside”!!!
- Smith clearly had no intention of following Due Process then nor was anyone in the Senior Management of CASA and AsA or Gov’t going to stand in his way although they all appeared aware he was “Winging it” illegally!!!
Disgraceful, inappropriate illegal behavior at the highest levels!!!
Seems we have every reason to be very concerned about “Above the law” status given to him in relation to these airspace matters!!!
Are the Fed Gov't that stupid twice?? I suppose that depends on how much Smith "Owns" them!!!!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A pothole on the information superhighway
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith:
No, but the reality is that trying to get a number of different airlines, operators and the AD OPR to all contribute to the cost and manage the process is not as simple as you seem to believe.
You need a reality check – and refer Capcom’s comments earlier:
It most definitely is not a myth. In the event of an incident, if the information given (or not given) by the operator is found to be a contributing factor, then that individual could find themselves personally liable unless covered by some form of indemnity insurance. Airservices, FAA etc. cover their ATS staff, as do Ambidji I believe, and the insurance is not cheap. Even in the event of an investigation, who would pay for legal representation?
In their own interests, anyone considering sitting in such a hot seat should ensure that their employer has such specific cover.
I also repeat a point that was made previously – there is a considerable difference between a UNICOM and a CAGRS – a UNICOM cannot give traffic information. The facilities required to provide a CAGRS and the experience required is significant – refer to the CASA CAAP.
Finally, your personal attacks on my colleagues here are unwarranted and childish. I have a personal opinion on the cause, but will refrain from expressing it for the moment.
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.
The claims about insurance are a complete myth.
In their own interests, anyone considering sitting in such a hot seat should ensure that their employer has such specific cover.
I also repeat a point that was made previously – there is a considerable difference between a UNICOM and a CAGRS – a UNICOM cannot give traffic information. The facilities required to provide a CAGRS and the experience required is significant – refer to the CASA CAAP.
Finally, your personal attacks on my colleagues here are unwarranted and childish. I have a personal opinion on the cause, but will refrain from expressing it for the moment.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just could not believe this!!!!
Perhaps the following will explain why Mr Smith finds questions about democracy so "extraordinary"
http://afr.com/election2001/news/200...XBNSFLKSC.html
Smith wants dictatorship
Populist entrepreneur Mr Dick Smith yesterday claimed that Australia needed a dictatorship in order to manage the economic and political turbulence resulting from the September 11 terror attacks in the US and the subsequent military action against Afghanistan. Mr Smith confirmed he had decided to withdraw from a planned campaign against the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr John Anderson, in his electorate of Gwydir.Mr Smith had previously promised to tour the electorate to argue that Mr Anderson had failed to implement reform to the aviation sector. "The world issues have taken over my secular interests in aviation - I don't plan to play any role in the election campaign," Mr Smith said yesterday. "This is not the time to change the Government. We need very strong leadership, in fact I think we need a dictator. I think we are in for some very tough times," he said. Katharine Murphy
Populist entrepreneur Mr Dick Smith yesterday claimed that Australia needed a dictatorship in order to manage the economic and political turbulence resulting from the September 11 terror attacks in the US and the subsequent military action against Afghanistan. Mr Smith confirmed he had decided to withdraw from a planned campaign against the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr John Anderson, in his electorate of Gwydir.Mr Smith had previously promised to tour the electorate to argue that Mr Anderson had failed to implement reform to the aviation sector. "The world issues have taken over my secular interests in aviation - I don't plan to play any role in the election campaign," Mr Smith said yesterday. "This is not the time to change the Government. We need very strong leadership, in fact I think we need a dictator. I think we are in for some very tough times," he said. Katharine Murphy
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys
I even carry a txpdr when flying non-metal on weekends if I mix in an MBZ. I do $hitstir, but only when I get the 'it is our airspace as we are the gods of RPT' attitude from those not smart enough to have a real job.
I have no time for that.
I like PPRUNE, there is obviously some education out there. Fools too unfortunately, but so is life.
But please, at least listen to Smith, or engage with him. I see a lot of agreement out there.
We had an agreement with CASA to base Regulations on the FARs. Go read the lates Parts 121 A & B. JARs, sneaking in to kill GA in Oz.
Smith pi$$es people off. His attitude is interesting, his opinion of his own worth amazing. But at the end of the day NAS is OK, just needs some rough edges shaved off. Smith is at least trying to do the right thing.
So instead of sniping at the tall poppie we could just honestly tell him where it goes wrong.
Chuck
I even carry a txpdr when flying non-metal on weekends if I mix in an MBZ. I do $hitstir, but only when I get the 'it is our airspace as we are the gods of RPT' attitude from those not smart enough to have a real job.
I have no time for that.
I like PPRUNE, there is obviously some education out there. Fools too unfortunately, but so is life.
But please, at least listen to Smith, or engage with him. I see a lot of agreement out there.
We had an agreement with CASA to base Regulations on the FARs. Go read the lates Parts 121 A & B. JARs, sneaking in to kill GA in Oz.
Smith pi$$es people off. His attitude is interesting, his opinion of his own worth amazing. But at the end of the day NAS is OK, just needs some rough edges shaved off. Smith is at least trying to do the right thing.
So instead of sniping at the tall poppie we could just honestly tell him where it goes wrong.
Chuck
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen, thank you all ! 4711,Creampuff, Capcom, & Capt Midnight, I admire both your tenacity and your research skills. This stuff needs to come out. I and many others eagerly await the (elusive) answers to 4711's questions.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man with 'false name' quoted on DickSmithFlyer.com.au!!!! How could this be??!!!!
From http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Con...?ContentID=219
Mr Smith, surely you would not be relying upon support from someone who is using a 'false name'!! That would be " more suited to Iraq than Australia" wouldn't it?
To paraphrase an Australian Geographic Society icon:
He (ulm) makes the "most extraordinary" statements "but" we "have no idea who" he is.
"Why" is he "so scared about identifying" himself? "What are" his "achievements in life – do" his "peers consider" him "a success or a failure? Come clean in relation to who" he "really" is and "what" his "intentions are......... Our forefathers fought for people to be able to speak their mind freely in this country. Why can’t" ulm? "I look forward to your advice."
Mr Smith, if anonymity is such an issue when someone asks a few simple questions in the interests of propriety, then why is it OK to totally ignore this "principle" when you find someone who agrees with you. Could it be the questions that you find a tad uncomfortable? (Repeated here 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?
Address the issues, Mr Smith. You credibility is firmly on the line.
Readers of this website probably also read PPRuNe (Professional Pilots Rumour Network.) Quite often on PPRuNe there are cargo cult type statements where the participants appear to have no idea that the problem facing Australian aviation at the present time is not safety, but cost.
It is indeed pleasing to read the following comments from a PPRuNer named “Ulm”, who is obviously as astute as his namesake, Charles Ulm, who was the business partner of Kingsford-Smith.
“In the US under a system similar to the NAS GA is booming, so are jobs. So the choice is easy. The FAA system (and rules) are designed for a big country and for minimal regulatory intervention. The JARs and associated airspace are not.”
He goes on to state
“JARs will be nothing but an absolute bloody nightmare for Oz. That’s why GA is all but dead in Europe and thriving in the US. The US has stolen Europe’s training market, all because of an overly complex and restrictive regulatory regime.”
It is indeed pleasing to read the following comments from a PPRuNer named “Ulm”, who is obviously as astute as his namesake, Charles Ulm, who was the business partner of Kingsford-Smith.
“In the US under a system similar to the NAS GA is booming, so are jobs. So the choice is easy. The FAA system (and rules) are designed for a big country and for minimal regulatory intervention. The JARs and associated airspace are not.”
He goes on to state
“JARs will be nothing but an absolute bloody nightmare for Oz. That’s why GA is all but dead in Europe and thriving in the US. The US has stolen Europe’s training market, all because of an overly complex and restrictive regulatory regime.”
To paraphrase an Australian Geographic Society icon:
He (ulm) makes the "most extraordinary" statements "but" we "have no idea who" he is.
"Why" is he "so scared about identifying" himself? "What are" his "achievements in life – do" his "peers consider" him "a success or a failure? Come clean in relation to who" he "really" is and "what" his "intentions are......... Our forefathers fought for people to be able to speak their mind freely in this country. Why can’t" ulm? "I look forward to your advice."
Mr Smith, if anonymity is such an issue when someone asks a few simple questions in the interests of propriety, then why is it OK to totally ignore this "principle" when you find someone who agrees with you. Could it be the questions that you find a tad uncomfortable? (Repeated here 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?
Address the issues, Mr Smith. You credibility is firmly on the line.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A diversion.......
According to http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-quer...ct&Acronym=ULM
"ulm" is an acronym for "unusually large-headed man"
Sound like anyone familiar?
"ulm" is an acronym for "unusually large-headed man"
Sound like anyone familiar?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And, of course, the regulatory environment has more to do with the "booming" US GA sector than:
Lower relative cost of aircraft - locally manufactured, cheaper delivery, more competetive sales market and no punitive exchange-rate to deal with;
The benefits of operating in the worlds largest and most dynamic economy, and;
Seriously cheap fuel.
Yeah, right.
Lower relative cost of aircraft - locally manufactured, cheaper delivery, more competetive sales market and no punitive exchange-rate to deal with;
The benefits of operating in the worlds largest and most dynamic economy, and;
Seriously cheap fuel.
Yeah, right.
Well, apparently over the weekend Airservices advertised (at least internally) for a NAS Implementation Manager.
I'm reliably informed that the reaction has been like turning on a light in a room full of cockroaches
I'm reliably informed that the reaction has been like turning on a light in a room full of cockroaches
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many a true word.....
Ulm
You are indeed astute:
With over 9500 'views' of this thread alone, I can assure you that we are 'listening'. Strangely, there is nothing but silence on the issues.
After all:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/smallbusi.../story_644.asp
So we will wait,we will watch, we will listen..................
Mr Smith, "do the right thing", we await your answers....
You are indeed astute:
But please, at least listen to Smith, or engage with him. I see a lot of agreement out there.
After all:
Dick Smith: “That is one of the reasons this business has been successful is that I'm trusted and I'm very careful to make sure with my name that I do the right thing, that I run an honest business.”
So we will wait,we will watch, we will listen..................
Mr Smith, "do the right thing", we await your answers....
Clothears,
Perhaps an appropriate name ??? Not pulled over your eyes as well, perhaps.
If it is all those things, and jolly old CASA is totally blameless, how come GA is booming in New Zealand.
Grab a copy of Trade-A-Plane, and have a look at the Avgas and Jet-A prices. There is not much in it on fuel price, US v Australia.
Tootle pip!!
Perhaps an appropriate name ??? Not pulled over your eyes as well, perhaps.
If it is all those things, and jolly old CASA is totally blameless, how come GA is booming in New Zealand.
Grab a copy of Trade-A-Plane, and have a look at the Avgas and Jet-A prices. There is not much in it on fuel price, US v Australia.
Tootle pip!!
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Four Seven Eleven - what is your problem mate?
It seems you are looking for conspiracy where maybe there is none. Your suggestion that because DS has been a supporter of the NAS proposal, that this somehow leads to a conflict of interest doesn't make sense.
It seems you are looking for conspiracy where maybe there is none. Your suggestion that because DS has been a supporter of the NAS proposal, that this somehow leads to a conflict of interest doesn't make sense.
- Would it be better for only people who know nothing about / have no views regarding the issue to be involved in the panel?
- How does a conflict of interest arise anyway? This term is usually defined as follows: conflict of interest Date: 1850, a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust (from Merriam-Webster online). How do you suggest this would apply in the case of DS' participation in this panel..?
Last edited by Aussie Andy; 17th Jun 2002 at 15:36.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aussie Andy- are you winding people up, or are you really that stupid?
I'll bite a little bit.
4711 is pointing out the conflict of interest as per your definition.
Mr Smith has a private interest. It's getting the airspace model that best suits HIM, to be applied in Australia. He has had several goes at it in the past, so this personal interest probably extends to his pride, settling old scores, saying "I told you so" etc.
His public responsibility lay in choosing the best airspace model for ALL AUSTRALIANS whilst on the panel. 4711 is rightly raising the conflict where the proponent of a particular model is sitting on the panel choosing the final model. Am I typing slowly enough?
In other words, did the panel really look at the options and choose, or was it a kangaroo court?
Do you need people on the panel who have no expertise? Maybe. Do you need people who are impartial? Definately.
I'll bite a little bit.
4711 is pointing out the conflict of interest as per your definition.
Mr Smith has a private interest. It's getting the airspace model that best suits HIM, to be applied in Australia. He has had several goes at it in the past, so this personal interest probably extends to his pride, settling old scores, saying "I told you so" etc.
His public responsibility lay in choosing the best airspace model for ALL AUSTRALIANS whilst on the panel. 4711 is rightly raising the conflict where the proponent of a particular model is sitting on the panel choosing the final model. Am I typing slowly enough?
In other words, did the panel really look at the options and choose, or was it a kangaroo court?
Do you need people on the panel who have no expertise? Maybe. Do you need people who are impartial? Definately.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting and worthwhile contribution
Aussie Andy
Thanks for your post. You do raise some pertinent points, which I will address:
I don't so much have a 'problem' as some 'concerns' about due process. All of these concerns could be allayed by proper answers to my original questions, as yet unanswered.
Not so much looking for 'conspiracy' as reassurance that this process was impartial and above board. After all, my tax dollars paid for the process. My avcharges will pay for any system which arises. My future work practices and my safety will be directly affected.
An answer in two parts:
Any potential conflict of interest arises from:
My mind will be made up once the answers to my questions come to light, whether that be through PPRuNE or appropriate enquiries through the parliamentary or other processes.
"Tall poppy syndrome" is often used by influental people to deflect criticism of their activities. Our system is predicated on the supposition that all 'poppies' are equal under the law. It is OK to be a 'tall poppy' in terms of achievement. This does not, however, afford anyone special rights under the law.
Mr Smith, in his roles within the CAA, CASA and the ARG was a public servant. As such, his activities are open to scrutiny and public comment.
The questions I have asked are entirely appropriate in the context of the conduct of a publicly funded assessment panel, deciding issues of public policy. I raise some concerns, but have been careful to state:[list=1][*]That I make no judgement about Mr Smith's activities in respect of potential 'financial' gain. Any concerns about this can be put to rest by answering my second question in particular.[*]That I have no specific concerns about the NAS model. If it is indeed the best model for future airspace reform, then let it stand on its own merits, scrutinised by an independent and impartial panel of experts.[/list=1]
As to the question of anonymity, I have addressed this before. To recap, Mr Smith chose to enter this discussion, knowing full well that PPRuNE operates as an anonymous form. He seeks to influence opinions through his postings. That is his right. I choose to remain anonymous. That is my right. Mr Smith has no problem quoting anonymous sources when they suit his purposes.
As stated, my concerns, and those of a number of other professionals within this industry could be immediately put to rest if proper answers weer received to my questions:
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?
For some reason, Mr Smith has been willing to answer and debate a number of issues, but not these. The Australian public are entitled to draw their own conclusions.
Thanks for your post. You do raise some pertinent points, which I will address:
Four Seven Eleven - what is your problem mate?
It seems you are looking for conspiracy where maybe there is none.
Would it be better for only people who know nothing about / have no views regarding the issue to be involved in the panel?
- It would be better for people who have a great deal of knowledge to be involved.
- It would be better for impartial people, who have no preconceived views to be part of any assessment panel.
How does a conflict of interest arise anyway? This term is usually defined as follows: conflict of interest Date: 1850, a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust (from Merriam-Webster online). How do you suggest this would apply in the case of DS' participation in this panel..?
- Mr Smith implememting a system which suits himself, to the exclusion of properly considering systems which are better suited to the Austrlian aviation industry in general.
- Any private interest or financial gain arising from a publicly funded role within the future airspace directorate. Mr Smith has refused to confirm or deny that discussions about this job have taken place.
It seems that your mind may already be made up more so than anyone elses. Its smacks of "tall-poppy" syndrome being alive and well to me. You (we) all have the benefit of anonymity on PPRUNE, DS does not.
"Tall poppy syndrome" is often used by influental people to deflect criticism of their activities. Our system is predicated on the supposition that all 'poppies' are equal under the law. It is OK to be a 'tall poppy' in terms of achievement. This does not, however, afford anyone special rights under the law.
Mr Smith, in his roles within the CAA, CASA and the ARG was a public servant. As such, his activities are open to scrutiny and public comment.
The questions I have asked are entirely appropriate in the context of the conduct of a publicly funded assessment panel, deciding issues of public policy. I raise some concerns, but have been careful to state:[list=1][*]That I make no judgement about Mr Smith's activities in respect of potential 'financial' gain. Any concerns about this can be put to rest by answering my second question in particular.[*]That I have no specific concerns about the NAS model. If it is indeed the best model for future airspace reform, then let it stand on its own merits, scrutinised by an independent and impartial panel of experts.[/list=1]
As to the question of anonymity, I have addressed this before. To recap, Mr Smith chose to enter this discussion, knowing full well that PPRuNE operates as an anonymous form. He seeks to influence opinions through his postings. That is his right. I choose to remain anonymous. That is my right. Mr Smith has no problem quoting anonymous sources when they suit his purposes.
As stated, my concerns, and those of a number of other professionals within this industry could be immediately put to rest if proper answers weer received to my questions:
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?
For some reason, Mr Smith has been willing to answer and debate a number of issues, but not these. The Australian public are entitled to draw their own conclusions.
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day ferril,
A private interest would be a pecuniary one (consisting of or measured in money). Whats the difference between a 747 and some on this thread? A 747 stops whining at the airport...
4711,
You seem to imagine that it is somehow possible for constituents of this panel to all have no prior opinion (what you term "preconceived views") on the subject - I would suggest that that is unlikely, no matter whether you are appointing former heads of CASA, members of Airservices, owners of airlines, pilots, ATCOs etc. - or even yourself. Its just not a realistic - of course the members of the panel will have background, experience, knowledge and opinions. Why else bother getting together to talk!?
And I still think you are wrong on the private interest point. You seem to be arguing that because DS a) was in the past in a paid official post and b) might in the future be in some paid official post, that this gives rise to a current conflict -> how do you reckon the guy stands to gain financially by participating on the panel? I think that people are so cynical that they can't accept that a high profile public figure (i.e tall poppy - gotta be cut down!?) could have a genuine motive. Listen, this fella has made plenty of money through his successful enterprises - leading to employment for others - and I don't see how his wealth could conceivably be significantly enhanced through participation in this public & bureaucratic process, do you? So that in my view makes a mockery of the suggestion of conflict of (pecuniary) interest.
You accuse DS of implememting a system which "suits himself" - how? This is to suggest that to promote an idea that makes sense to you, is to somehow unfairly / selfishly promote an idea to the detriment of others. Again, I don't see the logic - it seems an emotive argument.
Lastly, you go on to say that he does this "to the exclusion of properly considering systems which are better suited to the Austrlian aviation industry in general." What's your evidence to show that DS has excluded other views from his thinking then?
I do despair. If you have views on the proposals, air those - but not this twaddle and character assasination, which is just noise in the debate.
A private interest would be a pecuniary one (consisting of or measured in money). Whats the difference between a 747 and some on this thread? A 747 stops whining at the airport...
4711,
You seem to imagine that it is somehow possible for constituents of this panel to all have no prior opinion (what you term "preconceived views") on the subject - I would suggest that that is unlikely, no matter whether you are appointing former heads of CASA, members of Airservices, owners of airlines, pilots, ATCOs etc. - or even yourself. Its just not a realistic - of course the members of the panel will have background, experience, knowledge and opinions. Why else bother getting together to talk!?
And I still think you are wrong on the private interest point. You seem to be arguing that because DS a) was in the past in a paid official post and b) might in the future be in some paid official post, that this gives rise to a current conflict -> how do you reckon the guy stands to gain financially by participating on the panel? I think that people are so cynical that they can't accept that a high profile public figure (i.e tall poppy - gotta be cut down!?) could have a genuine motive. Listen, this fella has made plenty of money through his successful enterprises - leading to employment for others - and I don't see how his wealth could conceivably be significantly enhanced through participation in this public & bureaucratic process, do you? So that in my view makes a mockery of the suggestion of conflict of (pecuniary) interest.
You accuse DS of implememting a system which "suits himself" - how? This is to suggest that to promote an idea that makes sense to you, is to somehow unfairly / selfishly promote an idea to the detriment of others. Again, I don't see the logic - it seems an emotive argument.
Lastly, you go on to say that he does this "to the exclusion of properly considering systems which are better suited to the Austrlian aviation industry in general." What's your evidence to show that DS has excluded other views from his thinking then?
I do despair. If you have views on the proposals, air those - but not this twaddle and character assasination, which is just noise in the debate.
Aussie Andy
Four Seven Eleven is spot on. Take the time to read the following, and you might have the picture:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=21022
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=21831
Although the links look truncated, they appear to work.
Hear from you in about a week
Four Seven Eleven is spot on. Take the time to read the following, and you might have the picture:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=21022
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=21831
Although the links look truncated, they appear to work.
Hear from you in about a week
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give Dick a call.....
I called Dick on Saturday afternoon and left a message after he suggested I call him directly earlier on in this post.
This afternoon (Tuesday) he returned my call, I spoke with him for about 20 minutes about issues and questions I had with and about the proposed NAS, which he answered and clarified, quite enthusiastically I might add, to my satisfaction.
I also asked him if many people had called him directly, as he had offered his number, and he said that I was the only one so far.
Alot of pruners are talking about consultation and transparency, some with quite valid points, yet haven't yet taken the opportunity to engage Dick directly about issues relating to the NAS.
I humbly suggest that if anyone has questions or issues, they give him a call and discuss it directly with him.
This afternoon (Tuesday) he returned my call, I spoke with him for about 20 minutes about issues and questions I had with and about the proposed NAS, which he answered and clarified, quite enthusiastically I might add, to my satisfaction.
I also asked him if many people had called him directly, as he had offered his number, and he said that I was the only one so far.
Alot of pruners are talking about consultation and transparency, some with quite valid points, yet haven't yet taken the opportunity to engage Dick directly about issues relating to the NAS.
I humbly suggest that if anyone has questions or issues, they give him a call and discuss it directly with him.