New Airspace Continued: Dick Smith
Who exactly's going to do it?
Dick
In response to the question “What services are permitted in class G in accordance with the ICAO Annex regulations”, you stated:
In your first post in the second part of this thread you noted among other things that:
Note the words “specified in accordance with Annex 11 to the Chicago Convention…”.
Recall that only AA has power to determine that a volume of airspace is a class of airspace.
Only AA has power to determine that a volume of airspace is a class of airspace, and the power is expressly limited to determinations “specified in accordance with Annex 11 to Chicago Convention”.
The ARG has no power with respect to airspace.
You have no power with respect to airspace (and indeed you have eschewed the prospect).
Exactly who or what is going to create NAS as you describe it?
Are you saying that reg 2.04 authorises AA to make a determination that a volume of airspace is a class that has differences from the same class in Annex 11, provided the differences are notified, and that AA considers itself willing and able to do so?
In response to the question “What services are permitted in class G in accordance with the ICAO Annex regulations”, you stated:
We will be following the services that are provided in Glass G airspace in the North American system and not necessarily ICAO Annex regulations. My understanding is that in relation to these particular regulations, Australia only has an obligation to notify a difference. …
Under regulation 2.04 of the Air Services Regulations AA may determine that a volume of airspace is of a class specified in accordance with Annex 11 to the Chicago Convention as Class A, B, C, D, E, F or G.
Recall that only AA has power to determine that a volume of airspace is a class of airspace.
Only AA has power to determine that a volume of airspace is a class of airspace, and the power is expressly limited to determinations “specified in accordance with Annex 11 to Chicago Convention”.
The ARG has no power with respect to airspace.
You have no power with respect to airspace (and indeed you have eschewed the prospect).
Exactly who or what is going to create NAS as you describe it?
Are you saying that reg 2.04 authorises AA to make a determination that a volume of airspace is a class that has differences from the same class in Annex 11, provided the differences are notified, and that AA considers itself willing and able to do so?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Debating Standards
Creampuff
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for answers. (I should know!)
It seems Mr Smith's style is to:
[list=1][*]Evade the questions[*]Make up false accusations against the person asking the questions[*]Fly to Timbuktu[/list=1]
Vale Australian airspace reform.
Aussie Andy
Absolutely. The only thing the poll can prove is that about 75% (last time I looked) of PPRuNers who could be bothered to vote would like to see answers posted here. No more than that.
As to other people making themselves available - good point. There should be more of it.
Obviously, I take issue with the 'meaningful discussion' bit. Mr Smith has either blatantly refused to provide answers, or resorted to abuse and false accusations. I don't believe I have abused Mr Smith. I certainly never called him dishonest. Anyone who says that I did is not telling the truth.
Mr SMith pointedly does not take other views into account, and says so himself. An example is the CASA survey in which not one of more than a thousand professional aviators mentioned cost as a major issue. Yet, Mr Smith continues to proceed with reforms based on this presumption. Perhaps if we actually listened to what industry is telling us, we might achieve an outcome that people are happy with - particularly those whose livelihoods depend on a healthy aviation industry.
There is only one question in the seven to do with whether or not Mr Smith would take up a public role. I might add that there would be nothing improper on the face of it if he did. There would be questions if he had already been offered a position, but that is up to him to answer.
I have no expectation whatsoever of being invited to take up such a role. With no false modesty at all, I am not "of that calibre". I am just someone who has to make a living out of this and wants to see it done right
In Mr Smith's own words (or at least paraphrased):
Mr Smith
Maybe because........
http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Con...?ContentID=156
You're not going to claim that the person who wrote that was lying are you?
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for answers. (I should know!)
It seems Mr Smith's style is to:
[list=1][*]Evade the questions[*]Make up false accusations against the person asking the questions[*]Fly to Timbuktu[/list=1]
Vale Australian airspace reform.
Aussie Andy
And as for the poll - well I think most people will understand that a poll based on a self-selecting sample doesn't carry much validity, in either a statistical or political sense.
Lastly, I think it might be helpful to contrast the number of past/present UKCAA/JAA/FAA regulatory authorities making themselves known on a forum such as PPRUNE and opening themselves up to dialogue with us, ummm - let me think - NONE!
So why abuse and badger the one guy that you guys are lucky enough to have a meaningful discussion with and who has been / and maybe will be again in a position to take your views into account? Where's the sense in that?
So why abuse and badger the one guy that you guys are lucky enough to have a meaningful discussion with and who has been / and maybe will be again in a position to take your views into account? Where's the sense in that?
Obviously, I take issue with the 'meaningful discussion' bit. Mr Smith has either blatantly refused to provide answers, or resorted to abuse and false accusations. I don't believe I have abused Mr Smith. I certainly never called him dishonest. Anyone who says that I did is not telling the truth.
Mr SMith pointedly does not take other views into account, and says so himself. An example is the CASA survey in which not one of more than a thousand professional aviators mentioned cost as a major issue. Yet, Mr Smith continues to proceed with reforms based on this presumption. Perhaps if we actually listened to what industry is telling us, we might achieve an outcome that people are happy with - particularly those whose livelihoods depend on a healthy aviation industry.
But when we get into questions that are mainly to do with whether or not he may or may not take a public role if invited is not relevant. I suppose you guys are expecting to be invited in his stead, huh? No, maybe you're not of that calibre... I haven't heard you guys declaring your interests fully here on this forum.
I have no expectation whatsoever of being invited to take up such a role. With no false modesty at all, I am not "of that calibre". I am just someone who has to make a living out of this and wants to see it done right
In Mr Smith's own words (or at least paraphrased):
Mr Smith, you make the most extraordinary statements but we have no idea what the truth is. Why are you so scared about revealing the truth? What are your achievements in life – do your peers consider you a success or a failure? Come clean in relation to what really happened and what your intentions are, and the Australian aviation industry will regain some confidence in the system. 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.
Surely most reasonably minded people who are reading this “battle” must be asking, “Why doesn’t Four Seven Eleven phone Dick Smith?”
It has been claimed that most of the PPRuNe contributors use false names because they are cowards. I don’t agree. These pilots have my sympathy as I understand their careers could be jeopardised if they identified themselves. I do not wish to know their true identities and I’m not sure that it’s constructive to distribute lists of who they are.
You're not going to claim that the person who wrote that was lying are you?
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff,
With reference to your penultimate post dated 12 July 2002 11:51, I did NOT suggest a conspiracy involving anybody.
In my post dated 10 July 2002 23:52, responding to Dick Smith's post dated 10 July 2002 08:55, I asked Dick whether that was his view of the world - as seemed to be the case. I also asked him what evidence he had for holding that view.
My exact words were: "Dick, have I got this right? You are suggesting some sort of grand conspiracy involving BASI, the CPSU, the ABC, and in the case of the Monarch inquest, the NSW Coroner? That is ludicrous. Where is your evidence?"
I'm still waiting for his answer, but it seems that now he's flown the coop for ... Timbuktu??
I suggest that you read my post again - then kindly have the grace to apologise.
With reference to your penultimate post dated 12 July 2002 11:51, I did NOT suggest a conspiracy involving anybody.
In my post dated 10 July 2002 23:52, responding to Dick Smith's post dated 10 July 2002 08:55, I asked Dick whether that was his view of the world - as seemed to be the case. I also asked him what evidence he had for holding that view.
My exact words were: "Dick, have I got this right? You are suggesting some sort of grand conspiracy involving BASI, the CPSU, the ABC, and in the case of the Monarch inquest, the NSW Coroner? That is ludicrous. Where is your evidence?"
I'm still waiting for his answer, but it seems that now he's flown the coop for ... Timbuktu??
I suggest that you read my post again - then kindly have the grace to apologise.
Dusts off Fowler's
‘Galapagos’
I think you may have had an attack of the Dicks.
I suggest you read my post again.
My exact words were
[bolding added]
The subject of the word “suggested” in the sentence quoted is “theory”, not “conspiracy”. Didn’t you expressly suggest that Dick was suggesting some “grand conspiracy”? How else am I supposed to say that I don’t subscribe to the kind of conspiracy theory you suggested?
And you don’t need to apologise: I understand that grammar is a devilishly difficult art.
I think you may have had an attack of the Dicks.
I suggest you read my post again.
My exact words were
Although I don’t subscribe to the kind of conspiracy theory suggested by ‘Galapagos’ …
The subject of the word “suggested” in the sentence quoted is “theory”, not “conspiracy”. Didn’t you expressly suggest that Dick was suggesting some “grand conspiracy”? How else am I supposed to say that I don’t subscribe to the kind of conspiracy theory you suggested?
And you don’t need to apologise: I understand that grammar is a devilishly difficult art.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff,
What tangled webs you weave. I thought my meaning was plain enough for most. Perhaps I have given you too much oxygen.
But I don't think our little imbroglio has been very helpful and it's probably a good time for me to shut up. Otherwise, again, I run the risk that you may find yourself arguing with a fool.
What tangled webs you weave. I thought my meaning was plain enough for most. Perhaps I have given you too much oxygen.
But I don't think our little imbroglio has been very helpful and it's probably a good time for me to shut up. Otherwise, again, I run the risk that you may find yourself arguing with a fool.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm Back.... Sorry Dick, you'll need better hounds than that..!!
The questions posed and those answered as I expected are telling. Interesting those omitted though Eh!!!
Galapagos
Your stance and those of your colleagues is known about widely within ATC since the G debacle, I speak for no one other than myself and say:-
“You are not alone” many including me voiced the same concerns.
“My way or the Highway” was a common place attitude at that time!!.
This comes back to the accountability of decisions taken by suits without consultation with those within who are the technical experts operating the system day in day out.
My interest in this topic “as an army of 1” is to avoid the same mistakes being made again.
I am in the process of formulating further information on this issue that will I hope form a discussion that looks at addressing the underlying problem with the system in OZ.
The critical issue is for mine is nurturing Aviation and the dollars and jobs it could/should generate!, at the same time not placing safety services out of reach of the GA and Charter industries!.
I hope to post by the end of the week.
Cap.
Galapagos
Your stance and those of your colleagues is known about widely within ATC since the G debacle, I speak for no one other than myself and say:-
“You are not alone” many including me voiced the same concerns.
“My way or the Highway” was a common place attitude at that time!!.
This comes back to the accountability of decisions taken by suits without consultation with those within who are the technical experts operating the system day in day out.
My interest in this topic “as an army of 1” is to avoid the same mistakes being made again.
I am in the process of formulating further information on this issue that will I hope form a discussion that looks at addressing the underlying problem with the system in OZ.
The critical issue is for mine is nurturing Aviation and the dollars and jobs it could/should generate!, at the same time not placing safety services out of reach of the GA and Charter industries!.
I hope to post by the end of the week.
Cap.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please Note:
For the record Mr Mike Smith, I understand, was appointed to the role, but
did not become incumbent until just after it had started, so he cannot be
held responsible for it's design and implementation and it would not be fair
to do so. Neither is his past employment activity of any interest.
So what, we have all done all manner of jobs on our road to this place.
Me, I think I had more fun driving a D10, nobody argues with somebody
driving a D10.
Given the personalities, politics and heat involved in this issue, I
personally believe he should be applauded for his courage in taking on the
implementation role in that atmosphere and what could undoubtedly be a very
difficult task.
It could be more difficult than it need be if we aim, in time honoured
fashion to shoot the messenger and we risk marginalising the very real and
highly competent input available from these halls.
Or we could make it easier and more effective and satisfying if we stay on
the subject matter and all work together towards a common goal.
It is entirely possible that the other Mr Smith hijacked a process that was
already in train or he just got the timing right for the promotion of 'his'
NAS. We all know that in life "timing" is everything. It might also be the
reason many feel 'his' NAS needs more development or explanation
Either way and I would be surprised if Mr Dick Smith didn't agree with me,
it really doesn't matter, it got the Ministers attention, fully on the
public agenda and however it transpired, Mr Mike Smith is now tasked with
the implementation of "your" new airspace system not necessarily the
other Mr Smiths.
To some who need it to be so, this would be a significant victory, Mr Dick
Smith does polarise debate, so what, lets look and go past that.
It is not about winning or losing is it, neither is it about who is running
interference for whom.
Perhaps this will allow a better and more resonsible forum for the
full and proper development of "A" National Airspace System for which
the industry participants can claim their rightful ownership.
Those involved must know full well that passing down "received wisdom" from
on high may have been the manner of the past but will not now work.
Any new or reformed system must have gained full ownership by all
participants and for all participants for it to become fully
embedded.
Whether you like it or not, the mechanism has been set up, I am sure the new
group will welcome all the help it can get.
Use it now or forever lose the chance to "make a difference" and help get
Australian aviation back on track.
Or is it "easier and safer" for everyone at some time in the future to be
able to sit back and blame all our aviation shortcomings on good 'ol Dick.
Now that we have the internet and this forum and direct contact with anybody
we wish there are no longer any barriers to communicating your thoughts and
beliefs or shining lights into dark places.
Dick's might have big shoulders, but on past performances he will be very
quick to remind you that you have a chance now like never before.
And the CASA Director of Aviation Safety Promotion at the time of the
G-spot trial was? Anyone? drumroll.....
G-spot trial was? Anyone? drumroll.....
did not become incumbent until just after it had started, so he cannot be
held responsible for it's design and implementation and it would not be fair
to do so. Neither is his past employment activity of any interest.
So what, we have all done all manner of jobs on our road to this place.
Me, I think I had more fun driving a D10, nobody argues with somebody
driving a D10.
Given the personalities, politics and heat involved in this issue, I
personally believe he should be applauded for his courage in taking on the
implementation role in that atmosphere and what could undoubtedly be a very
difficult task.
It could be more difficult than it need be if we aim, in time honoured
fashion to shoot the messenger and we risk marginalising the very real and
highly competent input available from these halls.
Or we could make it easier and more effective and satisfying if we stay on
the subject matter and all work together towards a common goal.
It is entirely possible that the other Mr Smith hijacked a process that was
already in train or he just got the timing right for the promotion of 'his'
NAS. We all know that in life "timing" is everything. It might also be the
reason many feel 'his' NAS needs more development or explanation
Either way and I would be surprised if Mr Dick Smith didn't agree with me,
it really doesn't matter, it got the Ministers attention, fully on the
public agenda and however it transpired, Mr Mike Smith is now tasked with
the implementation of "your" new airspace system not necessarily the
other Mr Smiths.
To some who need it to be so, this would be a significant victory, Mr Dick
Smith does polarise debate, so what, lets look and go past that.
It is not about winning or losing is it, neither is it about who is running
interference for whom.
Perhaps this will allow a better and more resonsible forum for the
full and proper development of "A" National Airspace System for which
the industry participants can claim their rightful ownership.
Those involved must know full well that passing down "received wisdom" from
on high may have been the manner of the past but will not now work.
Any new or reformed system must have gained full ownership by all
participants and for all participants for it to become fully
embedded.
Whether you like it or not, the mechanism has been set up, I am sure the new
group will welcome all the help it can get.
Use it now or forever lose the chance to "make a difference" and help get
Australian aviation back on track.
Or is it "easier and safer" for everyone at some time in the future to be
able to sit back and blame all our aviation shortcomings on good 'ol Dick.
Now that we have the internet and this forum and direct contact with anybody
we wish there are no longer any barriers to communicating your thoughts and
beliefs or shining lights into dark places.
Dick's might have big shoulders, but on past performances he will be very
quick to remind you that you have a chance now like never before.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bravo… Woomera for President!!
The diverse depth of knowledge and experience of participants in this place is a resource not to be underestimated. Other luminaries have made that mistake with inevitable consequences.
It is my hope that collectively we can put together an Airspace system compliant with ICAO, addresses the safety needs of industry and supported by re-investment by Australians for Australians.
I have done a deal of work on this and will post the frame for discussion soon.
I am hopeful people will pull it apart, critique, adjust, tweak, argue, contribute as necessary until perhaps we can as an industry put up something that we all have had a part of.
We might just achieve what Millions of dollars and political interference has not and never would.
Mike Smith is but one of those I hope will participate with Gusto.
Cap.
It is my hope that collectively we can put together an Airspace system compliant with ICAO, addresses the safety needs of industry and supported by re-investment by Australians for Australians.
I have done a deal of work on this and will post the frame for discussion soon.
I am hopeful people will pull it apart, critique, adjust, tweak, argue, contribute as necessary until perhaps we can as an industry put up something that we all have had a part of.
We might just achieve what Millions of dollars and political interference has not and never would.
Mike Smith is but one of those I hope will participate with Gusto.
Cap.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whooops.
Sorry folks the fault is not in your set do not adjust your receiver.
I was attempting to to use the "split the topic" mode because the thread had gone beyond the usual 100 posts mark and there seems to be a little problem with the database which the technical elves at PPRuNe Central are looking at.
Keep going on this thread for the moment until normal transmission is restored.
Sorry folks the fault is not in your set do not adjust your receiver.
I was attempting to to use the "split the topic" mode because the thread had gone beyond the usual 100 posts mark and there seems to be a little problem with the database which the technical elves at PPRuNe Central are looking at.
Keep going on this thread for the moment until normal transmission is restored.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doug Stott has started another thread in a attempt to get the personalities out of the issue and focus on the problems.
This thread was due to be closed in any event having been allowed to run way past the nominal 100 posts limit.
I will now close it but we will continue to recover the rest lost either as a result of my amateur fumblings or the great God Unix of Cyberspace having a hissy fit.
This thread was due to be closed in any event having been allowed to run way past the nominal 100 posts limit.
I will now close it but we will continue to recover the rest lost either as a result of my amateur fumblings or the great God Unix of Cyberspace having a hissy fit.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: North of the Tweed, Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Answers???
As posted on the other NAS thread, I recently rang Dick Smith and spoke to him about NAS. When I mentioned PPRuNE, the subject of 4711 and the 7 questions came up.
I told Dick that I thought he should provide answers (on PPRuNE), as there was a lot of interest in the subject. He said he would not, but he did give me some answers which he asked me to post here.
A few notes and disclaimers:
1) These are not direct quotes. They are my recollection of part of a long phone call.
2) At the time of the call, neither DS nor I had the 7 questions in front of us, and were relying on memory. For that reason, some were not discussed.
3) I cautioned Dick, and he accepted, that I may get some of the things he said wrong. (Dick Smith, feel free to jump in with a correction if I do get it wrong.)
THE QUESTIONS
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?
DS: The question of conflict of interest is ridiculous. As a board member of the then CAA, DS was asked to look at airspace reform precisely because he had no commercial or other vested interest.
DS said his mind was not made up, although it is no secret that he has been in favour of NAS. This has been as a result of talking to people to come up with the best system.
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?
DS: The precise nature of discussions between DS and the minister would take pages to describe.
No job offer was made
Will the minutes, submissions received, deliberations, decision-making process and voting of the panel be made public?
Not discussed in great detail, but according to DS there was no ‘vote’ as such. The fact that LAMP was not going to go ahead meant that the decision was unanimous.
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?
Not covered specifically, but as announced a group (from DOTARs) will provide detailed financial information.
DS did provide some of the reasoning behind the quoted savings ($50million I think) but not enough stuck in my memory. Sorry.
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?
Not discussed.
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?
Not discussed.
Who wrote NAS?
A complex answer which I would describe as somewhere between “none of the above” and “all of the above”.
Maybe Dick can explain it better, but it was basically a collaborative effort with input and ideas from Mick Toller, Ian Lucas and others. Input does not necessarily mean actually ‘writing’ it, however.
I hope that is of assistance to those who are looking for answers.
I told Dick that I thought he should provide answers (on PPRuNE), as there was a lot of interest in the subject. He said he would not, but he did give me some answers which he asked me to post here.
A few notes and disclaimers:
1) These are not direct quotes. They are my recollection of part of a long phone call.
2) At the time of the call, neither DS nor I had the 7 questions in front of us, and were relying on memory. For that reason, some were not discussed.
3) I cautioned Dick, and he accepted, that I may get some of the things he said wrong. (Dick Smith, feel free to jump in with a correction if I do get it wrong.)
THE QUESTIONS
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?
DS: The question of conflict of interest is ridiculous. As a board member of the then CAA, DS was asked to look at airspace reform precisely because he had no commercial or other vested interest.
DS said his mind was not made up, although it is no secret that he has been in favour of NAS. This has been as a result of talking to people to come up with the best system.
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?
DS: The precise nature of discussions between DS and the minister would take pages to describe.
No job offer was made
Will the minutes, submissions received, deliberations, decision-making process and voting of the panel be made public?
Not discussed in great detail, but according to DS there was no ‘vote’ as such. The fact that LAMP was not going to go ahead meant that the decision was unanimous.
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?
Not covered specifically, but as announced a group (from DOTARs) will provide detailed financial information.
DS did provide some of the reasoning behind the quoted savings ($50million I think) but not enough stuck in my memory. Sorry.
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?
Not discussed.
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?
Not discussed.
Who wrote NAS?
A complex answer which I would describe as somewhere between “none of the above” and “all of the above”.
Maybe Dick can explain it better, but it was basically a collaborative effort with input and ideas from Mick Toller, Ian Lucas and others. Input does not necessarily mean actually ‘writing’ it, however.
I hope that is of assistance to those who are looking for answers.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maaate
Thank you, and thanks Mr Smith.
Some good answers. Any further answers or general comments from Mr Smith would of course be welcome, but the majority seem to have been covered. Well done.
As some wiser heads have stated, it might be time to move on.
Thank you, and thanks Mr Smith.
Some good answers. Any further answers or general comments from Mr Smith would of course be welcome, but the majority seem to have been covered. Well done.
As some wiser heads have stated, it might be time to move on.
