New Airspace Continued: Dick Smith
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: here and there
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canada has blanket radar coverage over its major provinces:
http://www.navcanada.ca/contentEN/ne...ated/Radar.pdf
the USA has full radar coverage.
http://www.navcanada.ca/contentEN/ne...ated/Radar.pdf
the USA has full radar coverage.
Last edited by The Crimson Fruitbat; 8th Jul 2002 at 18:05.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Kandahar Afghanistan
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A request was posted in the ATC conference for a US controller to stop in and answer questions about US airspace. I'm a controller at a combined Tower and Approach Control with a Class C airspace, and controlls airports with class E airspace. I have also worked over 7 years at a VFR tower that had a Class D airspace that reverted to Class E when the tower closed at night. I also work the EAA airshow at Oshkosh Wisconsin (class D) every July as a volunteer controller.
If you guys want to talk with more NATCA controllers you can also post questions on the NATCA public BBS at :
http://www.natca.org/PublicBBS.asp
Mr. John Carr, NATCA President also finds time to respond to questions that are posted on the BBS.
Mike
FWA
If you guys want to talk with more NATCA controllers you can also post questions on the NATCA public BBS at :
http://www.natca.org/PublicBBS.asp
Mr. John Carr, NATCA President also finds time to respond to questions that are posted on the BBS.
Mike
FWA
Dick - further to the UNICOM proposal.
Post by Dick Smith 14th June 2002 06:52:
1) There are no UNICOMs operating officially at TRE or PMQ (source: ERSA)
2) CASA do not consider UNICOMs as risk mitigators
Summary of Responses Regulatory Standards for Airspace – CASR Part 71
Post by Dick Smith 4th June 2002 04:25:
3) Where does the CAGRS (which is a vast improvement over a UNICOM) that you introduced fit into the NAS model?
Post by Dick Smith 14th June 2002 06:52:
We have an effective UNICOM at Taree operated by the airline handling agent and it works superbly at no cost. <snip> 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.
2) CASA do not consider UNICOMs as risk mitigators
Summary of Responses Regulatory Standards for Airspace – CASR Part 71
Comment 21 – Impact analysis of options – Economic impact – NPRM page 15, paragraph 5.5, fourth dot point.
CASA Response
CASA has proposed a hierarchy of risk mitigators applicable to terminal airspace i.e. CTAF, AFRU, MBZ, CA/GRS, Class D and Class C control towers. CASA has not included UNICOM in that hierarchy for the following reasons:
a) UNICOMs originated in the USA, however, CASA understands that the FAA does not include them in any risk mitigation hierarchy for airspace and traffic services;
b) UNICOM is not necessarily a dedicated service that will always be available when called; the nature of UNICOM is that it may be a secondary function to the commercial activities of the operator, e.g. refuelling, aircraft hire, pilot shop. Indeed provision is made for CTAF broadcasts should the operator not respond;
c) In Australia, as in the USA, Canada and New Zealand, the standards for UNICOM services limit the information that may be provided. The service is approved only to provide basic aerodrome and basic weather information, not to provide assessed, relevant traffic details, or meteorological observations. These limitations have been placed on UNICOM services because the operators are not necessarily certified to any standard other than that of a basic radio operator. CASA is not prepared to have UNICOM standards unique to Australia;
d) In regard to above point, the FAA AIM (4-1-9 d & e), makes a clear distinction between the ‘known traffic’ that may be passed by a FSS and the general traffic information that can be passed by a UNICOM, e.g. five aircraft operating in the pattern;
CASA Response
CASA has proposed a hierarchy of risk mitigators applicable to terminal airspace i.e. CTAF, AFRU, MBZ, CA/GRS, Class D and Class C control towers. CASA has not included UNICOM in that hierarchy for the following reasons:
a) UNICOMs originated in the USA, however, CASA understands that the FAA does not include them in any risk mitigation hierarchy for airspace and traffic services;
b) UNICOM is not necessarily a dedicated service that will always be available when called; the nature of UNICOM is that it may be a secondary function to the commercial activities of the operator, e.g. refuelling, aircraft hire, pilot shop. Indeed provision is made for CTAF broadcasts should the operator not respond;
c) In Australia, as in the USA, Canada and New Zealand, the standards for UNICOM services limit the information that may be provided. The service is approved only to provide basic aerodrome and basic weather information, not to provide assessed, relevant traffic details, or meteorological observations. These limitations have been placed on UNICOM services because the operators are not necessarily certified to any standard other than that of a basic radio operator. CASA is not prepared to have UNICOM standards unique to Australia;
d) In regard to above point, the FAA AIM (4-1-9 d & e), makes a clear distinction between the ‘known traffic’ that may be passed by a FSS and the general traffic information that can be passed by a UNICOM, e.g. five aircraft operating in the pattern;
I suggest you phone me and I will give you a list of some of the changes I have instigated or been directly involved in. Over 40 major changes at the last count – everything from AMATS (i.e. the airspace we fly in now), Class E, Certified Air/Ground, private pilot instrument ratings, first of type certification, and the major change from a uniquely Australian designed flight date processing system to the TAAATS system that we now have. None of these major changes have been reversed, and many have given substantial savings so more people are still in work.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to Capt. Midnight's remarks about Taree:
There is definitely NO Unicom at Taree. The only reason the airline agent will ever speak on the CTAF is immediately after the sceduled service calls inbound on the discrete company frequency. This is laid out in Eastern's FAM.
This is purely to fulfil the requirement of confirming the inbound A/C is on the correct frequency, as Taree does not have an AFRU or Beepback unit. This procedure is seen as an acceptable alternate to the AFRU.
There is NO Unicom at Port Macquarie, and there NEVER has been. Well at least not in the 8 years that I've been operating there on RPT services.
I hope this clears up the PMQ/TRE thing once and for all.
There is definitely NO Unicom at Taree. The only reason the airline agent will ever speak on the CTAF is immediately after the sceduled service calls inbound on the discrete company frequency. This is laid out in Eastern's FAM.
This is purely to fulfil the requirement of confirming the inbound A/C is on the correct frequency, as Taree does not have an AFRU or Beepback unit. This procedure is seen as an acceptable alternate to the AFRU.
There is NO Unicom at Port Macquarie, and there NEVER has been. Well at least not in the 8 years that I've been operating there on RPT services.
I hope this clears up the PMQ/TRE thing once and for all.
IMHO the problem is with the definition of unicom. Mr Smith seems to believe that an agent present at the airfield only when their company has a movement constitutes a Unicom. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth Dick but that seems to be about it?
To say there is no cost in a unicom, well what can I say. The cost of the equipment is met by.....The cost of the time of the radio op is met by...
Mr Bosch started the cost recovery ball rolling, someone somewhere pays for everything.
To say there is no cost in a unicom, well what can I say. The cost of the equipment is met by.....The cost of the time of the radio op is met by...
Mr Bosch started the cost recovery ball rolling, someone somewhere pays for everything.
Icarus2001, you complain about my “long winded answers” even though many people would say that my answers are as short as possible under the circumstances. One of the reasons for not answering Four Seven Eleven’s seven questions is that some of the answers would be even longer and more complex – you certainly wouldn’t like that.
CaptainMidnight, you state
No, I have not ignored this statement. For ten years I have been explaining that the claim by airlines that they cannot provide UNICOMs for insurance reasons is a complete furphy. For example, when Impulse operated UNICOMs on the aerodrome frequency at both Port Macquarie and Cooma during the airspace demonstration, they contacted their insurance company and were told there would be no additional premium as the service was being provided to reduce the chance of a collision – therefore a claim. Qantas provide a UNICOM on the aerodrome frequency at Taree and there has been no additional insurance cost.
If you look at my website (www.dicksmithflyer.com.au) at the very large number of “near miss” incidents that have been filed in MBZs over a two year period, you will note that a good percentage may have been prevented if a US style UNICOM had been operating at the time.
I’m amazed that some pilots are so interested in maximising airline profits that they run a cost based campaign against UNICOMs. As stated above, it is a furphy. UNICOMs have no measurable cost increase over the present system.
‘Galapagos’, in relation to your 4 Corners quotes, the program was just possibly a little biased considering those at BASI who wrote the report were CPSU members. The ABC and the people who worked on the 4 Corners program were mainly CPSU members. The CPSU stood to be affected by the Airspace 2000 reforms as the airspace was to be handled by air traffic controllers – i.e. Civil Air members. The CPSU campaigned relentlessly to keep their members’ jobs – good on them.
Just as one example of the bias, John Laverick contacted me later to say that in a long interview with Liz Jackson, mainly consisting of positive comments about me, he made two negative comments. These were the only ones that were used. Other people who I suggested would be able to give a bit of balance to the program were not interviewed.
Most importantly, the key point made in the program was about the safety incidents (called “near misses”) which took place in MBZs. Since then, such safety incidents have increased, with even closer near misses, but they haven’t been released to the media by BASI/ATSB.
Also, you must remember, at that time Ansett was an icon, and Liz Jackson was obviously besotted by this. That’s why she dismissed the “letter in the bottom drawer” threat as not being important.
The 4 Corners program was a pretty good hatchet job on me and was in support of those who wanted the status quo. I’m used to this type of criticism and biased selective reporting. The key point many people have forgotten is that “others” have had three years to do the necessary airspace reform. They haven’t moved one millimetre. This is just one of the reasons our aviation industry is in such dire straits.
In relation to the Coroner’s statement
this advice was given to the Coroner by BASI. The record shows something different – that is, that I introduced the administrative fines legislation and have continuously pushed for a proper enforcement system to be used by CASA. I have never, ever advocated leniency, and policing regulations has nothing to do with the fact that aviation safety has always been limited by what society can afford. BASI’s credibility was so great that it was dissolved soon after, and its Director was removed without even a public thank you for the work he had done.
The Crimson Fruitbat, you state
The USA does not have full radar coverage where it really counts – that is, below 5,000’ AGL where IFR approaches and departures mix with VFR traffic. Over 50% of US airports serviced by airline traffic do not have radar coverage at the start of the instrument approach. Canada, like Australia, has good radar coverage in its busy traffic corridor along one border. It has vast areas of no radar coverage, including busy Class D airports with jet traffic – such as Whitehorse.
Could I suggest that PPRuNers contact FWA NATCA and ask the following questions as they may help to clarify the US system?
[list][list=1]1. Is it true that in the US system there are no area frequency boundaries charted on maps to facilitate communication between IFR and VFR traffic in enroute Class E and G airspace?[/list=1][list=2]2. How then do VFR and IFR traffic communicate to each other to arrange radio alerted see and avoid when in non-radar enroute airspace in the USA?[/list=2]
CaptainMidnight, you state
“I see you have chosen to ignore an earlier post on this subject re cost, insurance etc.”
If you look at my website (www.dicksmithflyer.com.au) at the very large number of “near miss” incidents that have been filed in MBZs over a two year period, you will note that a good percentage may have been prevented if a US style UNICOM had been operating at the time.
I’m amazed that some pilots are so interested in maximising airline profits that they run a cost based campaign against UNICOMs. As stated above, it is a furphy. UNICOMs have no measurable cost increase over the present system.
‘Galapagos’, in relation to your 4 Corners quotes, the program was just possibly a little biased considering those at BASI who wrote the report were CPSU members. The ABC and the people who worked on the 4 Corners program were mainly CPSU members. The CPSU stood to be affected by the Airspace 2000 reforms as the airspace was to be handled by air traffic controllers – i.e. Civil Air members. The CPSU campaigned relentlessly to keep their members’ jobs – good on them.
Just as one example of the bias, John Laverick contacted me later to say that in a long interview with Liz Jackson, mainly consisting of positive comments about me, he made two negative comments. These were the only ones that were used. Other people who I suggested would be able to give a bit of balance to the program were not interviewed.
Most importantly, the key point made in the program was about the safety incidents (called “near misses”) which took place in MBZs. Since then, such safety incidents have increased, with even closer near misses, but they haven’t been released to the media by BASI/ATSB.
Also, you must remember, at that time Ansett was an icon, and Liz Jackson was obviously besotted by this. That’s why she dismissed the “letter in the bottom drawer” threat as not being important.
The 4 Corners program was a pretty good hatchet job on me and was in support of those who wanted the status quo. I’m used to this type of criticism and biased selective reporting. The key point many people have forgotten is that “others” have had three years to do the necessary airspace reform. They haven’t moved one millimetre. This is just one of the reasons our aviation industry is in such dire straits.
In relation to the Coroner’s statement
“A former chairman had advocated a policy of ‘affordable safety’ which favoured a very lenient approach to policing regulations”
The Crimson Fruitbat, you state
“The USA has full radar coverage.”
Could I suggest that PPRuNers contact FWA NATCA and ask the following questions as they may help to clarify the US system?
[list][list=1]1. Is it true that in the US system there are no area frequency boundaries charted on maps to facilitate communication between IFR and VFR traffic in enroute Class E and G airspace?[/list=1][list=2]2. How then do VFR and IFR traffic communicate to each other to arrange radio alerted see and avoid when in non-radar enroute airspace in the USA?[/list=2]
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly there are questions with respect to NAS that need answering.
The solution is not for everyone/anyone to ring up Dick and ask him to explain it.
If things were explained properly in the first instance, Dick would not have to do the personal job.
Perhaps Mike Smith from the NAS Team might like to take the questions and consider them as the type of subject matter that needs to be addressed in the Education Program/further consdieration of NAS?
I'm not trying to defend Dick here. I believe the questions should be answered. Seeing Dick chooses not to, perhaps Mike Smith can.
The solution is not for everyone/anyone to ring up Dick and ask him to explain it.
If things were explained properly in the first instance, Dick would not have to do the personal job.
Perhaps Mike Smith from the NAS Team might like to take the questions and consider them as the type of subject matter that needs to be addressed in the Education Program/further consdieration of NAS?
I'm not trying to defend Dick here. I believe the questions should be answered. Seeing Dick chooses not to, perhaps Mike Smith can.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ask a US Pilot or ATC'er
There is a post on the North American site where Aussies can post questions about the US SYstem.
Go Here: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=59243
I got a result on a previous post regarding the below. % MAC gave the last answer.
Captain Midnight:
“What if it is VMC at & below (say) 1,000 AGL (fog & cloud can lift, you know)? VFR would be on the CTAF, and IFR doing an approach would be with ATC. The VFR is in VMC and the IFR is in IMC – a regular occurrence. Frequency separation?”
Dick Smith:
You’ve obviously never spoken to a US pilot or air traffic controller. Why don’t you do this? The answer is simple and it happens all the time in the USA. The IFR aircraft would be cleared for the instrument approach by ATC. The IFR aircraft would advise ATC when changing to the CTAF and then make the recommended CTAF calls. When it was prudent, the IFR aircraft would return to the ATC frequency to cancel IFR or to report on the missed approach. The aircraft would be on one frequency or the other. "
%MAC: "I flew relatively heavy equipment into non-towered airports, what we call class G. He [Dick Smith] mentions something about that (page 1 or 2). We really need to use 2 radios, one on CTAF and the other on ATC. ATC will let us switch freqs, depending on traffic, 15 - 10 miles from the field. We make a call at 20 out, 15 out with plans, ie heavy xyz will enter mid-field left downwind runway 29, traffic in the bodunk area please advise. Then at 10 out, again at 5 out with intentions, and then entering the pattern and every leg in the pattern. If we are doing an approach, then the same distances apply but we say something like '5 mile final runway 29 at 1,500' descending, traffic advise'. The problem arises when the wx requires us to do an instrument approach, but someone is doing pattern work. This can happen with a ceiling of 1001ft and a visibility of 1.001 miles. Now if he is in a J3 or some such fun aircraft without an electrical system he need not communicate. So we're at 140kias on final and breaking out at 1001ft see a J-3 also on final, 1 mile in front at 40kias. At MDA/ DH one is generally looking for the runway, not nordo traffic, but you learn fast."
Go Here: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=59243
I got a result on a previous post regarding the below. % MAC gave the last answer.
Captain Midnight:
“What if it is VMC at & below (say) 1,000 AGL (fog & cloud can lift, you know)? VFR would be on the CTAF, and IFR doing an approach would be with ATC. The VFR is in VMC and the IFR is in IMC – a regular occurrence. Frequency separation?”
Dick Smith:
You’ve obviously never spoken to a US pilot or air traffic controller. Why don’t you do this? The answer is simple and it happens all the time in the USA. The IFR aircraft would be cleared for the instrument approach by ATC. The IFR aircraft would advise ATC when changing to the CTAF and then make the recommended CTAF calls. When it was prudent, the IFR aircraft would return to the ATC frequency to cancel IFR or to report on the missed approach. The aircraft would be on one frequency or the other. "
%MAC: "I flew relatively heavy equipment into non-towered airports, what we call class G. He [Dick Smith] mentions something about that (page 1 or 2). We really need to use 2 radios, one on CTAF and the other on ATC. ATC will let us switch freqs, depending on traffic, 15 - 10 miles from the field. We make a call at 20 out, 15 out with plans, ie heavy xyz will enter mid-field left downwind runway 29, traffic in the bodunk area please advise. Then at 10 out, again at 5 out with intentions, and then entering the pattern and every leg in the pattern. If we are doing an approach, then the same distances apply but we say something like '5 mile final runway 29 at 1,500' descending, traffic advise'. The problem arises when the wx requires us to do an instrument approach, but someone is doing pattern work. This can happen with a ceiling of 1001ft and a visibility of 1.001 miles. Now if he is in a J3 or some such fun aircraft without an electrical system he need not communicate. So we're at 140kias on final and breaking out at 1001ft see a J-3 also on final, 1 mile in front at 40kias. At MDA/ DH one is generally looking for the runway, not nordo traffic, but you learn fast."
Dick:
1) Latter point first - we have established there is no UNICOM operating at Taree – re-read the earlier posts.
2) Indemnity insurance and other costs for both UNICOM & CAGRS are recognised issues – by everyone except you it seems.
Summary of Responses Regulatory Standards for Airspace – CASR Part 71
3) A “US-style” UNICOM can only provide limited information and is not considered a safety risk mitigator. From my previous post: “In Australia, as in the USA, Canada and New Zealand, the standards for UNICOM services limit the information that may be provided. The service is approved only to provide basic aerodrome and basic weather information, not to provide assessed, relevant traffic details, or meteorological observations” and “UNICOM is not necessarily a dedicated service that will always be available when called; the nature of UNICOM is that it may be a secondary function to the commercial activities of the operator, e.g. refuelling, aircraft hire, pilot shop”.
4) You did not comment on where the CAGRS you introduced fits into the NAS model.
5) It seems that under NAS, MBZs do not exist, replaced instead by CTAFs, which may or may not have a UNICOM, and if they do at best it will only operate part of the time. That seems a backward safety step to me, and according to CASA, MBZs offer a higher safety level over CTAFs.
Summary of Responses Regulatory Standards for Airspace – CASR Part 71
Re your issue with MBZs. It seems to me that the incidents you cite on your website (due to “incorrect frequency selection, faulty equipment or misunderstanding”) could have happened anywhere, whether CTAF MBZ or otherwise. Reverting MBZs to CTAFs would not reduce those, but only serve to increase the likelihood of more problems per the CASA response above, and the situation given by %MAC posted by Achilles.
CASA Airspace Users Group – Final Meeting Notes – 15 April 2002
Finally, you say “The key point many people have forgotten is that “others” have had three years to do the necessary airspace reform. They haven’t moved one millimetre”.
As has been said more than once here, the LAMP model had been developed almost to the point of implementation, including procedures development, workshops including charting etc. (the safety case & MBZ issues were things that I dare say could have been worked out). So much for not moving one millimetre – and by making that statement you are alienating the people/organisations involved.
There seems little point in discussing things with you, because you don’t listen and won’t consider other points of view. I’m reminded of an article by a Phillip Adams mentioning you a few years ago, in which he quoted “the only person Dick ever listens to is Dick”, and “Dick thinks there are simple solutions to complex problems”. I guess Phillip & the sources of the quotes were CPSU members ….
Scran: it’s an idea - we’re sure getting nowhere here with the detail.
Achilles: thanks for posting that & the response. And that is “World’s best practice”???
No, I have not ignored this statement. For ten years I have been explaining that the claim by airlines that they cannot provide UNICOMs for insurance reasons is a complete furphy. <snip> Qantas provide a UNICOM on the aerodrome frequency at Taree and there has been no additional insurance cost.
2) Indemnity insurance and other costs for both UNICOM & CAGRS are recognised issues – by everyone except you it seems.
Summary of Responses Regulatory Standards for Airspace – CASR Part 71
Comment 23 – Impact analysis of options – Economic impact – NPRM page 16, Table at paragraph 5.6
An organisation stated that the cost figures given in the table at paragraph 5.6 for the Certified Air/Ground Radio Service are understated because the cost to the aerodrome operator of indemnity insurance of the service has not been included. The respondent stated that the CA/GRS has to be separately insured and the cost is in the order of $50,000 to $70,000 per annum.
An organisation stated that the cost figures given in the table at paragraph 5.6 for the Certified Air/Ground Radio Service are understated because the cost to the aerodrome operator of indemnity insurance of the service has not been included. The respondent stated that the CA/GRS has to be separately insured and the cost is in the order of $50,000 to $70,000 per annum.
4) You did not comment on where the CAGRS you introduced fits into the NAS model.
5) It seems that under NAS, MBZs do not exist, replaced instead by CTAFs, which may or may not have a UNICOM, and if they do at best it will only operate part of the time. That seems a backward safety step to me, and according to CASA, MBZs offer a higher safety level over CTAFs.
Summary of Responses Regulatory Standards for Airspace – CASR Part 71
Comment 47 – Mandatory Broadcast Zones (MBZ) – Non-ICAO – MOS Part 71 paragraph 2.2.10 (page 2-4)
CASA Response
CASA acknowledges that MBZs are not ICAO compliant in that they require carriage and use of radio by VFR flights in Class G airspace. When MTAFs (later renamed MBZs) were introduced under the Airspace Management and Air Traffic Services (AMATS) project on 12 December 1991, no risk assessment was conducted. The MTAFs replaced the pre-existing AFIZs. In 1994/95, CAA and a risk consultancy firm developed the Airspace Risk Model (ARM), which was later incorporated into an ICAO airspace planning manual. Initially, the ARM was used to model the difference in risk between MBZs and CTAFs. It found that for a given traffic level and mix, an MBZ reduced risk by a factor of about three or four.
CASA Response
CASA acknowledges that MBZs are not ICAO compliant in that they require carriage and use of radio by VFR flights in Class G airspace. When MTAFs (later renamed MBZs) were introduced under the Airspace Management and Air Traffic Services (AMATS) project on 12 December 1991, no risk assessment was conducted. The MTAFs replaced the pre-existing AFIZs. In 1994/95, CAA and a risk consultancy firm developed the Airspace Risk Model (ARM), which was later incorporated into an ICAO airspace planning manual. Initially, the ARM was used to model the difference in risk between MBZs and CTAFs. It found that for a given traffic level and mix, an MBZ reduced risk by a factor of about three or four.
CASA Airspace Users Group – Final Meeting Notes – 15 April 2002
Unicom services provided old information and did not provide the same level of certainty as an MBZ.
As has been said more than once here, the LAMP model had been developed almost to the point of implementation, including procedures development, workshops including charting etc. (the safety case & MBZ issues were things that I dare say could have been worked out). So much for not moving one millimetre – and by making that statement you are alienating the people/organisations involved.
There seems little point in discussing things with you, because you don’t listen and won’t consider other points of view. I’m reminded of an article by a Phillip Adams mentioning you a few years ago, in which he quoted “the only person Dick ever listens to is Dick”, and “Dick thinks there are simple solutions to complex problems”. I guess Phillip & the sources of the quotes were CPSU members ….
Scran: it’s an idea - we’re sure getting nowhere here with the detail.
Achilles: thanks for posting that & the response. And that is “World’s best practice”???
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Confining my comments to the Class G saga, any rational reading of those events is that safety was the major concern for most of the parties. The deficiencies of that experiment have been properly documented in the ATSB publication, 'Systemic Investigation into the Class G Airspace Demonstration'.
ATSB (formerly BASI) is the properly constituted expert authority which, despite your view to the contrary, I think continues to enjoy a good standing in the eyes of the aviation community. The idea that the crisis was in some way manufactured by BASI and "the unions" to protect jobs is, I suggest, yours alone - an extraordinary fiction not supported by the facts.
Let me tell you my story. I was a CASA FOI. Also, one of those troublesome unionists around at that time - a member of the AFAP. For my sins the guys had elected me to be the chairman of CASA's Pilot Council. My role: to represent the workplace interests of CASA's FOIs.
But I soon found myself, unwillingly, being drawn into the centre of the Class G storm. Our members had had very little input to the project and it had become clear to us that we had been marginalised. Remember the 'Galapagos' slur levelled at us by CASA management? A group of people "comfortable in the old ways"; "resistant to change"; etc. But we had serious safety concerns - particularly about the removal of DTI when the availability of radar could not be guaranteed.
So we decided to make our concerns known in an email to Mick Toller. Perhaps you still remember the last line: "Our duty of care to the Australian public demands that we bring these matters to your immediate notice." And Mick Toller's blunt response, two hours later: "If you don't agree with CASA's strategic direction, I will be happy to accept your resignation."
Then, as you might recall, the story went public and things got a bit messy. I was offered a package (which I refused) to get out of the place two hours after I had appeared on a TV program. Then I was officially silenced while the drama went on. But you know all of this Dick. As it happened, the stand we took was fully vindicated by the subsequent events which led to the cancellation of the Demonstration.
Why did we do it? Why risk our jobs? A union conspiracy? absolutely not. Our concern was for the safety of the public and the airspace users. Very simply, a duty of care. If we had remained silent, knowing what we did, and there had been a fatal accident, we could never have looked our accusers in the face. That was our bottom line. There was no other agenda.
I now wear the title 'Galapagos' as a badge of honour.
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?
Confining my comments to the Class G saga, any rational reading of those events is that safety was the major concern for most of the parties. The deficiencies of that experiment have been properly documented in the ATSB publication, 'Systemic Investigation into the Class G Airspace Demonstration'.
ATSB (formerly BASI) is the properly constituted expert authority which, despite your view to the contrary, I think continues to enjoy a good standing in the eyes of the aviation community. The idea that the crisis was in some way manufactured by BASI and "the unions" to protect jobs is, I suggest, yours alone - an extraordinary fiction not supported by the facts.
Let me tell you my story. I was a CASA FOI. Also, one of those troublesome unionists around at that time - a member of the AFAP. For my sins the guys had elected me to be the chairman of CASA's Pilot Council. My role: to represent the workplace interests of CASA's FOIs.
But I soon found myself, unwillingly, being drawn into the centre of the Class G storm. Our members had had very little input to the project and it had become clear to us that we had been marginalised. Remember the 'Galapagos' slur levelled at us by CASA management? A group of people "comfortable in the old ways"; "resistant to change"; etc. But we had serious safety concerns - particularly about the removal of DTI when the availability of radar could not be guaranteed.
So we decided to make our concerns known in an email to Mick Toller. Perhaps you still remember the last line: "Our duty of care to the Australian public demands that we bring these matters to your immediate notice." And Mick Toller's blunt response, two hours later: "If you don't agree with CASA's strategic direction, I will be happy to accept your resignation."
Then, as you might recall, the story went public and things got a bit messy. I was offered a package (which I refused) to get out of the place two hours after I had appeared on a TV program. Then I was officially silenced while the drama went on. But you know all of this Dick. As it happened, the stand we took was fully vindicated by the subsequent events which led to the cancellation of the Demonstration.
Why did we do it? Why risk our jobs? A union conspiracy? absolutely not. Our concern was for the safety of the public and the airspace users. Very simply, a duty of care. If we had remained silent, knowing what we did, and there had been a fatal accident, we could never have looked our accusers in the face. That was our bottom line. There was no other agenda.
I now wear the title 'Galapagos' as a badge of honour.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: here and there
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, I stand corrected, I was thinking high level enroute in the USA. Canadian radar coverage would equate to at least 80% of the whole Australian land mass.
However, you mention Whitehorse (CYXY) up in the Yukon. CYXY IFR aircraft are put sequenced onto instrument final by a procedural sector at an ACC, the aiport has a manned TWR with a discrete TWR and Ground freq, when not manned VFR and IFR traffic (after being cleared for an instrument approach by "centre") are on a discrete flight service freq.
Canada has Flight Service Stations (FSS) at airports that warrant a traffic information service but not an ATC service. Australia chopped Flight Service relatively recently*, are they making a comeback???
However, you mention Whitehorse (CYXY) up in the Yukon. CYXY IFR aircraft are put sequenced onto instrument final by a procedural sector at an ACC, the aiport has a manned TWR with a discrete TWR and Ground freq, when not manned VFR and IFR traffic (after being cleared for an instrument approach by "centre") are on a discrete flight service freq.
Canada has Flight Service Stations (FSS) at airports that warrant a traffic information service but not an ATC service. Australia chopped Flight Service relatively recently*, are they making a comeback???
Last edited by The Crimson Fruitbat; 11th Jul 2002 at 05:23.
Given Galapagos’ post, I’ll go full circle and make again some points for which I was roundly criticized in the course of the first part of this thread.
I am yet to see sufficient objective evidence to show that the ‘trial’ G airspace was objectively less safe than the airspace it temporarily replaced.
The problems were implementation-related: Dick put the CASA cart before the Airservices horse, for reasons that I have tried to explain. But that does not inevitably lead to the conclusion that the airspace, even if implemented properly, was less safe than the existing airspace.
I remind everyone of what the erstwhile head of BASI/ATSB actually said at the time, under oath, about what their investigation was and was not about. This is from: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s2066.pdf
[bolding; caps added]
Although I don’t subscribe to the kind of conspiracy theory suggested by ‘Galapogos’, I do think that anyone who believes ATSB/BASI is immune from political pressure is being naïve in the extreme. At the link above you will read about the notorious ‘letter in the bottom drawer’ incident with the Director of CASA. What’s so special about the ATSB/BASI that it’s immune? Doesn’t it have fax machines or a mail box? Doesn’t it employ people whose career progression depends on keeping their political bosses happy? Ring up Rob Lee and chat to him about it.
Anyone who thinks that governments don’t put pressure on agencies to produce politically-palatable reports, makes Pollyanna look like a cynic.
For Dick to suggest that airspace reform is influenced by considerations other than objective safety and opportunity cost, is not a ‘conspiracy theory’. It is, in my view, plain reality.
I am yet to see sufficient objective evidence to show that the ‘trial’ G airspace was objectively less safe than the airspace it temporarily replaced.
The problems were implementation-related: Dick put the CASA cart before the Airservices horse, for reasons that I have tried to explain. But that does not inevitably lead to the conclusion that the airspace, even if implemented properly, was less safe than the existing airspace.
I remind everyone of what the erstwhile head of BASI/ATSB actually said at the time, under oath, about what their investigation was and was not about. This is from: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s2066.pdf
Senator BROWN—Dr Lee, can you tell us why this damning report which stopped the trial has reference to incidents that occurred during the trial but no reference to incidents, which we have heard are more worrying still, that occurred before the trial and under the old system?
The report has a set of recommendations which have failed to call for that comparison to be done, although you blame CASA in that report for not having done a comparison. To the average person, the best way of working out whether this system is better or not is to be able to look at the air safety record during the short period in which it was in place, as against the air safety record beforehand. I have heard some pretty compelling evidence today that the air safety record before was worse, not better.
You have been able to quote two incidents during the trial period, but I am under the impression that if you had gone back before the trial incidents you could have come up with worse. Either way, why is it that your report was loaded with incidents against the interests of the trial but made no reference to what happened before? There is a call for a comparative study, but you had not done the comparative study. Why not? Otherwise the exercise, to me, becomes one of bias and one which may in fact lead to a wrong decision because of that bias.
On the face of it, it has led to a wrong decision.
Dr Lee—Senator, I would disagree with that. If you understood the process by means of which we operate, you would probably change your opinion. The investigation is still going on. Even under the new system, when it comes in, we are still going to get safety incidents.
Are you advocating that we go back to the old system as soon as we get the first incident in a new airspace system?
Senator BROWN—No. I am asking about a comparison. Under any system you will have imperfections and you will have near misses and so on.
Dr Lee—That is right.
Senator BROWN—All of us want to see those reduced to a minimum but the evidence I am hearing today is that the safer system, which was implemented and trialled, has been withdrawn. What I want you to do is convince this committee that on the record of incidences occurring before this system was brought in it was not in fact safer.
Senator Ian Macdonald—It is not up to these people to convince the committee of anything. This is an estimates committee hearing where the annual reports and the performance of the departments can be questioned and facts obtained about costs and budgetary figures. It is not for them to justify anything.
Senator BROWN—But, Minister, they had to make a decision about which was the safer system and I think—
Dr Lee—Senator, you are missing the point completely. We did not make a statement about whether the system was safer or not. The Airservices safety case never said it was safer and neither did the CASA safety case. What we are talking about here is not whether the newer system was safer than the old system; the new system is what we are moving towards. What this investigation looked at was the PROCESS by which the trial was introduced, AND THAT IS AS FAR AS IT WENT. We are not saying that the safety case for the new system, which I presume CASA will be doing or has done, is going to say the new system is more safe than the old. What we are saying is that when you are travelling towards that goal—and I agree with you that it is in all our interests to maximise safety, and that is what we are about—if you have a system where you have people who are unfamiliar with the new system, have not had a proper education program and make more errors in the new system, even though ultimately it may be safer, then the net result through that process is—
Senator BROWN—How can you say there were more errors if you have not done a comparative study?
Dr Lee—We have an investigation going but it is not a simple basis about whether there are more or less errors—
Senator BROWN—You are drawing conclusions without the evidence though, aren’t you, Dr Lee?
Dr Lee—No, not at all, the investigation team have made their recommendations on the basis of the evidence they have gathered and are still continuing to gather, and they are not concerned with comparing the new system with the old.
Senator BROWN—I find that remarkable because your report says that one thing CASA has to do is compare the new system with the old. Now you are say that you are not concerned with comparing the new system with the old.
….
The report has a set of recommendations which have failed to call for that comparison to be done, although you blame CASA in that report for not having done a comparison. To the average person, the best way of working out whether this system is better or not is to be able to look at the air safety record during the short period in which it was in place, as against the air safety record beforehand. I have heard some pretty compelling evidence today that the air safety record before was worse, not better.
You have been able to quote two incidents during the trial period, but I am under the impression that if you had gone back before the trial incidents you could have come up with worse. Either way, why is it that your report was loaded with incidents against the interests of the trial but made no reference to what happened before? There is a call for a comparative study, but you had not done the comparative study. Why not? Otherwise the exercise, to me, becomes one of bias and one which may in fact lead to a wrong decision because of that bias.
On the face of it, it has led to a wrong decision.
Dr Lee—Senator, I would disagree with that. If you understood the process by means of which we operate, you would probably change your opinion. The investigation is still going on. Even under the new system, when it comes in, we are still going to get safety incidents.
Are you advocating that we go back to the old system as soon as we get the first incident in a new airspace system?
Senator BROWN—No. I am asking about a comparison. Under any system you will have imperfections and you will have near misses and so on.
Dr Lee—That is right.
Senator BROWN—All of us want to see those reduced to a minimum but the evidence I am hearing today is that the safer system, which was implemented and trialled, has been withdrawn. What I want you to do is convince this committee that on the record of incidences occurring before this system was brought in it was not in fact safer.
Senator Ian Macdonald—It is not up to these people to convince the committee of anything. This is an estimates committee hearing where the annual reports and the performance of the departments can be questioned and facts obtained about costs and budgetary figures. It is not for them to justify anything.
Senator BROWN—But, Minister, they had to make a decision about which was the safer system and I think—
Dr Lee—Senator, you are missing the point completely. We did not make a statement about whether the system was safer or not. The Airservices safety case never said it was safer and neither did the CASA safety case. What we are talking about here is not whether the newer system was safer than the old system; the new system is what we are moving towards. What this investigation looked at was the PROCESS by which the trial was introduced, AND THAT IS AS FAR AS IT WENT. We are not saying that the safety case for the new system, which I presume CASA will be doing or has done, is going to say the new system is more safe than the old. What we are saying is that when you are travelling towards that goal—and I agree with you that it is in all our interests to maximise safety, and that is what we are about—if you have a system where you have people who are unfamiliar with the new system, have not had a proper education program and make more errors in the new system, even though ultimately it may be safer, then the net result through that process is—
Senator BROWN—How can you say there were more errors if you have not done a comparative study?
Dr Lee—We have an investigation going but it is not a simple basis about whether there are more or less errors—
Senator BROWN—You are drawing conclusions without the evidence though, aren’t you, Dr Lee?
Dr Lee—No, not at all, the investigation team have made their recommendations on the basis of the evidence they have gathered and are still continuing to gather, and they are not concerned with comparing the new system with the old.
Senator BROWN—I find that remarkable because your report says that one thing CASA has to do is compare the new system with the old. Now you are say that you are not concerned with comparing the new system with the old.
….
Although I don’t subscribe to the kind of conspiracy theory suggested by ‘Galapogos’, I do think that anyone who believes ATSB/BASI is immune from political pressure is being naïve in the extreme. At the link above you will read about the notorious ‘letter in the bottom drawer’ incident with the Director of CASA. What’s so special about the ATSB/BASI that it’s immune? Doesn’t it have fax machines or a mail box? Doesn’t it employ people whose career progression depends on keeping their political bosses happy? Ring up Rob Lee and chat to him about it.
Anyone who thinks that governments don’t put pressure on agencies to produce politically-palatable reports, makes Pollyanna look like a cynic.
For Dick to suggest that airspace reform is influenced by considerations other than objective safety and opportunity cost, is not a ‘conspiracy theory’. It is, in my view, plain reality.
Creamy
You have hit it on the head - the problems were implementation-related and in my opinion that is what made it unsafe. Pilot education was poor to non-existent - from my experience many pilots were unsure of what was going on, what they were supposed to do, what was expected of them and what they could expect of ATC, and a significant number (bless their hearts!!!) didn't have a schmick - didn't even know it was happening - and quite a few of those were IFR. Again, from my experience the NAF was congested to the point of regularly being unusable. Procedures and documentation were being changed on the fly, most of it by NOTAM (weren't there 10 or so at one point?) and we know a significant number of pilots - IFR & VFR - do not check NOTAMs.
In all it was badly managed, and the fact that Dick was involved and seemingly pushing the barrow immediately got a lot off-side.
You have hit it on the head - the problems were implementation-related and in my opinion that is what made it unsafe. Pilot education was poor to non-existent - from my experience many pilots were unsure of what was going on, what they were supposed to do, what was expected of them and what they could expect of ATC, and a significant number (bless their hearts!!!) didn't have a schmick - didn't even know it was happening - and quite a few of those were IFR. Again, from my experience the NAF was congested to the point of regularly being unusable. Procedures and documentation were being changed on the fly, most of it by NOTAM (weren't there 10 or so at one point?) and we know a significant number of pilots - IFR & VFR - do not check NOTAMs.
In all it was badly managed, and the fact that Dick was involved and seemingly pushing the barrow immediately got a lot off-side.
on your FM dial
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the CASA Director of Aviation Safety Promotion at the time of the G-spot trial was? Anyone? drumroll.....
(The Director of Aviation Safety Promotion was in charge of the G-spot pilot education program.)
(The Director of Aviation Safety Promotion was in charge of the G-spot pilot education program.)
Third World Countries....
Creampuff
At it again, I see.
You have been in Utah for too long now.
Reading your posts one would lead to believe that:
1. Australia is a corrupt backwater that is driven by interest groups.
2. The CPSU (Communist Party Soviet Union) has a totally out of proportion view of its proper place in this world, and will continually muddy the waters to ensure that it's members remain tenured for life.
3. Dick Smith had no ill intentions, just a forceful management style that didn't suit the dinosaurs or the bureaucrats.
Come-on now Creampuff. Who believes in conspiracy theories now?
Now back to your multiple wives, you must be a glutton for punishment.
At it again, I see.
You have been in Utah for too long now.
Reading your posts one would lead to believe that:
1. Australia is a corrupt backwater that is driven by interest groups.
2. The CPSU (Communist Party Soviet Union) has a totally out of proportion view of its proper place in this world, and will continually muddy the waters to ensure that it's members remain tenured for life.
3. Dick Smith had no ill intentions, just a forceful management style that didn't suit the dinosaurs or the bureaucrats.
Come-on now Creampuff. Who believes in conspiracy theories now?
Now back to your multiple wives, you must be a glutton for punishment.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vietnam
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems straight foward. ICAO approved? 
While ICAO provides the “tools” and framework to design the aviation system, it leaves some flexibility in its application to States.
This is necessary as less developed aviation nations do not have the infrastructure to support advanced traffic management systems, nor have traffic densities which require sophisticated management.
International best practice, safety, and cost / benefit provide the design basis for advanced States to determine their airspace and operational architecture within the ICAO framework.
Not so sure about that!
That could be a problem. Why not just have it exactly the same Australia wide? State by state would only cause more problems.
Mr. Smith what are the savings compared to the current system? I remember something in the $50 Million per year range.
If this NAS is as good as its cracked up to be then Australian aviation could only benefit. However, if it does not, then I can sense a very sour taste in many people's mouths.
Implementation June 2002? It has already started?
Overall it seems very straight foward. However I sense things may have been "glossed" up to sell the product.
I have no doubt that Mr. Smith is pushing Australian aviation foward and respect his views. Here is to a great new turning point in Australian aviation. :
While ICAO provides the “tools” and framework to design the aviation system, it leaves some flexibility in its application to States.
This is necessary as less developed aviation nations do not have the infrastructure to support advanced traffic management systems, nor have traffic densities which require sophisticated management.
International best practice, safety, and cost / benefit provide the design basis for advanced States to determine their airspace and operational architecture within the ICAO framework.
Not so sure about that!
That could be a problem. Why not just have it exactly the same Australia wide? State by state would only cause more problems.
Mr. Smith what are the savings compared to the current system? I remember something in the $50 Million per year range.
If this NAS is as good as its cracked up to be then Australian aviation could only benefit. However, if it does not, then I can sense a very sour taste in many people's mouths.
Implementation June 2002?
It has already started? Overall it seems very straight foward. However I sense things may have been "glossed" up to sell the product.
I have no doubt that Mr. Smith is pushing Australian aviation foward and respect his views. Here is to a great new turning point in Australian aviation. :
Last edited by hmm...; 13th Jul 2002 at 07:03.