Capt Claret

BP,

Your last par might cause some incoming. I'd don the hard hat if I were you.

From my reading of this thread, I believe that traffic info was passed to the 73, which quite understandably couldn't see the Lancair.

You said, Jeppesen ATC, AU-201, 1.1.1 defines the service provided in Class E airspace, as follows (my bolding);

IFR & VFR flights permitted. IFR flights are subject to ATC clearance. IFR flights are separated from IFR flights. IFR flights receive traffic information on known VFR flights as far as is practicable

So to answer your question, it's not an unauthorised procedure but comes somewhere down the list of "Dick" priorities for the ATCO, who is probably sh!tting him/herself that s/he will be on duty and be blamed when the big crunch happens, 'cause sure as hell Smith and Anderson won't accept any responsibility.

karrank

The Bikkie Maker should be fu%ked and burnt. You are a complete disgrace. The only reason I will have anything further to do with the NAS project is the aim at the moment seems to be to ROLLBACK some of the cr@p you have implemented. You can climb a tree as far as I am concerned. If I ever have to endure another meeting with you in it I will not acknowledge your existence in any way.

I have said it before you peanut, if you want to get what the Yanks do then implement it. What you have done is implement what the FAA has documented, and it is nothing like what they do. Your in depth analysis of the situation is a mockery. All through the training program for NAS 2B my workmates drew parrallels to the famous PSA 727 vs VFR C172 crash in LA. They had traffic, they both were in contact with ATC, ATC watched them legally crash and it happened in B airspace. B airspace you wally, one grade more restrictive than anything in Australia, even in the 1950's you seem to hate so much. Your f*ckwit FAA contact is saying they would solemnly separate stuff in the boonies yet let them prang in LA....

Will the Lancair pilot get spanked for daring to broadcast his whereabouts on the not only "appropriate" but right ATC freq instead of being on the CTAF of some hole miles away???

No problem at all Bush Pelican. This is the service the aircraft would have recieved in the same situation prior to NOV27. All the other incidents that have horrified and dismayed ATC all over the country would have recieved the service you think shouldn't be a problem prior to NOV27 also. It was a C airspace service. Now these traffic pairs are being "resolved" with an E airspace service and its not working well. And I'm getting sick of hearing about the 21% drop in incidents. Absolute CR@P

And they got the same service outside radar coverage also (like to the north of Launceston) but it was flagrant wastage to provide such a service from the single-manned towers... which are still manned the same, so no dollars saved???????

The reference somebody made to only brave controllers vectoring in E airspace refers to one of the meaningless bits of cr@p that has been placed into AIP by this sh1tty project. It is a responsibility of VFR to avoid IFR routes. So if I vector an IFR off one of these sacrosanct IFR routes and he hits somebody legally flying along in E airspace with no transponder some of the mud WILL stick to me.

If everybody likes E airspace so much how come I had 3 RPT flights today refuse clearances in E airspace because their TCAS was U/S????

Edited to insert more vitriol about 4 times, and I still want to strangle the pencil-necked geek...

No Further Requirements

Agree. agree, agree.

It is we who will get hung out if a near-miss turns into a not-miss! Then again, there isn't a sep standard anyway.....

I believe Civil Air have began legal proceedings against a Mr D Smith on behalf of the 'criminal' ATCers. Anyone hear about this?

Cheers,

NFR.

Shitsu-Tonka

To follow up Karrank:

I am also aware of two VOZ flights today adding a total of 30 track miles to not fly in E airspace with a u/s TCAS.

Hey Dick: are they living in the 1950's resistant to change as well?

Hey Dick: how much money did they save today flying the extra miles? Oh did I mention this happens every 3-4 days (just at the 2 local airports near me let alone the rest of Australia).

Hey Dick: why if it is 'good news' for Australia are the airlines avoiding this E airspace whenever they can?

Hey Dick: Havent seen you on this forum for a while - perhaps you prefer the personal touch -- As a professional I value safe airspace:why dont you call me to discuss my views on NAS?: Call 1800 ROLLBACK.

NFR: If you are a member of CivilAir you can read about the legal proceedings here.

Chimbu chuckles

OK Woomera it's 24 hours later and I have calmed down somewhat....I have not changed my mind about this tool however

Chuck


Chuck

No one is asking you to change your mind. Indeed, I would suggest you are amongst like minds in this forum. However, this forum does require a little more decorum than would be required on a Friday night in, say, the Temple of Eros, Port Morbid or the Bird of Parasite, Goroka.

As a pilot, you have cause to be angry due to your perception of exposure to greater personal risk and danger under NAS.

Consider the restrained, expressed anger of ATCs on this forum. Whilst they are not exposed to the potential personal danger you may be exposed to, one can only conclude this anger is a result of total dedication to their profession, collective dedication to safe air transport in Australian air space and total frustration with the systems that have been imposed upon them.

Which is contrary to the statements made by Mr Smith!!! Strange that? Someone has it wrong and I don't think it's the collective ATCs!

Woomera

AirNoServicesAustralia

NFR, I understand you going above and beyond the call of duty, and I have been in the same situation back in the days when I worked the E corridor to Mildura (which turned out to be the tip of the iceberg, and that was scary enough). I had reservations though as I'm sure you had at stepping in and stopping an aircrafts descent (hopefully) above an unverified, no details 1200 paint. What if the Mode C is wrong, what if the VFR climbs, and in the resulting inquiry after they hit, experts say that if left to their own devices the two aircraft would have in fact missed but by levelling your IFR off you made the situation worse.

As I said I understand completely the predicament you were in, but it seems you can't win either way. You either play it by the book and watch the paints merge, and get branded a "criminal" or you step in, step over the line, and try and separate with only half the story, and risk your livelihood, not to mention the lives of the passengers. Its a tough one and one that Dick Smith has never had to be in a position to consider.

Thats the thing that gets me, he sits in his nice house, with his fat bank account, and tells us, pilots and controllers, how we should be doing our job, when he has no understanding of the pressures we all face on a daily basis. I feel so sorry for the poor guy who first has to go through the hell of seeing traffic almost collide, and then being branded publicly a criminal. Its an absolute disgrace and I hope Civil Air or AirServices or both pursue the loud mouth legally and make him pay for his defamation of this unfortunate individual.

Binoculars

I've been around for a few summers. I've seen vitriol pass backwards and forwards. I met many of the 89 protagonists on both sides at the time and since. But never have I heard such united outrage among the aviation community at any single event as I am hearing now, and Anderson, you'd better listen.

Normally when I am on leave as I am at the moment, I don't want to know what's happening in the industry because it's more of the same old same old; just give me my pay and leave me alone. This time it's different.

I haven't been so angry since the seventies, and it's all because of a megalomaniac fish who can't accept that even though he's got the shark in his local pond by the balls, the shark is in fact impotent, and not only are the other fish in this pond starting to point their arses in his general direction, but like Nemo, the word has spread to all the other ponds, even the ones that contain fish who used to be friendly. The AOPA pond is still out there but isolated and saying nothing. This indicates a degree of intelligence I hadn't previously credited them with.

It is heartening to me that people on all sides of the industry are recognising this farce for what it is and are starting to demand that this fool and his political sucker fish be removed from any position of power.

Let's once again let aviation safety be the focus of our attention, not dollars as it has been for the last fifteen years, and most certainly not wounded egos, as it has been for the last five. I can't begin to describe how nauseated I am at the current state of affairs, but thanks to those on all sides of the aviation fence in Australia who see professionalism as being a pre-requisite, I have a faint hope that commonsense may prevail.

WALLEY2

Due to the Dick Smith broadcast I have decided to post his letter we received prior to Easter and my response

These letters have now been forwarded to CASA and AA as we feel, considering the current circumstances, they should be aware that the statements made by Mr Dick Smith were not an isolated "heat of the moment" unfortunate mistake.

When viewed in the light of the broadcast I now believe Mr Dick Smith's final paragraphs re CASA and AA requires Ministerial action: as if true CASA and AA CEOs need to explain how this illegal action occurred and other responsible executives must be dismissed and possibly charged- if the statements are not true then one of his advisers has in writing slandered two of his major and most important agencies, the appropriate action in this case is clear.

On advise, I will not comment further except to say we stand by our letter of reply and deny any wrong doing by ourselves, CASA and to our knowledge AA.



DICK SMITH


Phone: 61 2 9450 0600 PO Box 418
Fax: 61 2 9486 3482 Terrey Hills NSW 2084
Email: [email protected] Australia

8 April 2004 40406ca.cap

Mike Caplehorn
Chairman
Broome International Airport
53 Wheatley St
GOSNELLS WA 6110
By fax: 08 9490 1775

Dear Mike,

Thank you very much for the copy of the Design Aeronautical Study into Broome International Airport.

This report confirms the obvious illegal operations that are taking place at Broome Airport. For example, in numerous places you state that the service you provide is a Directed Traffic Information service.

“The important distinction to draw is the difference between “airport information” and “Directed Traffic Information”… DTI is more than “airport information” and provides additional lines of defence… In this report, and preliminary aeronautical study, it is the provision of a “Directed Traffic Information” (DTI) service that is significant.”

You also state:

“The CAGROs must hold an ATC or Flight Service Officer licence and are certified by CASA to provide advice on conflicting traffic.”

Mike, it is obvious from the above that you are providing an illegal service. As Chairman of CASA, when I introduced the original CAGRO I was clearly advised that we could only provide a service similar to that provided by the US UNICOM – i.e. basic information on a non-prescriptive basis with the pilot being totally responsible for deciding on whether to act on the information. The reason for this advice is that in Australia – as in the USA – certain authorities have the sole responsibility to provide air traffic services. In Australia, it is only Airservices Australia and the Defence force. In the USA, it is only the FAA.

The fact that you have a tower set up at Broome, that you have arranged to obtain the special Airservices Australia flight strips, and that your “licensed” operator not only fills these flight strips out for aircraft that fly enroute IFR across your airspace (say, at 8.000’ or 9,000’) but also provides a full directed traffic service to these entroute aircraft, shows that you are providing an identical service to that provided by Airservices Australia to IFR aircraft in Class G airspace. You are providing a service that is identical to the old Aerodrome Flight Information Zone (AFIZ).

You confirm this by comparing your CAGRO with the Flight Service Station at Ketchikan in the USA. In the USA this type of Directed Traffic Service can only be provided by the FAA. It is clear that a Directed Traffic Information service can only be provided in Australia by Airservices Australia, or the Defence force.

Your operator also acts like an air traffic controller and verbally records an Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) in an identical format to that provided by Airservices Australia air traffic controllers at Class D towers.

I believe all of these services you provide are, not only misleading to pilots, but also, to put it quite simply, illegal. The law states quite clearly that such services can only be provided by Airservices Australia or the Defence force.

From what I can make out, you have somehow been able to get CASA officers to turn a blind eye to what you are doing. I point out that the same thing happened at the time of the Seaview crash, where CASA officers turned a blind eye to Seaview, which was allegedly operating airline services under the charter category. I understand that after the Royal Commission into the Seaview accident CASA officers were actually prosecuted.

I confirm that I introduced the original Air/Ground system to closely copy the US UNICOM system. It could not be interpreted in any way as an air traffic control or directed traffic service. It was not prescriptive and did not provide hazard alerts – the job of licensed people.

The fact that you can continue this illegal operation can only come about because Airservices do not wish to operate their own system there and lose money (and bonuses), and because officers in CASA know that their mates will benefit – as only licensed people (who have worked for the Canberra bureaucracy such as Airservices or CASA) can operate these illegal stations.

I’ll still be pushing for a proper Class D tower – at least a 20% improvement in safety for very little cost – and it will be legal.

Yours faithfully





Dick Smith

13 April 2004


Facsimile: (02) 9486 3482 – 2 Pages




Mr Dick Smith
C/- Dick Smith Investments
PO Box 418
TERREY HILLS NSW 2084

Dear Dick,

Thank you for your letter of 8th April, 2004. These are my thoughts on the matters you raised. I hope you find them adequate.

Firstly I can understand, but do not agree, with your position on pushing for a Class D tower at Broome. However, I am astounded that you would state that I, or our company, would allow or carryout “illegal operations” at Broome International Airport (BIA).

We first communicated years ago on establishing a CAGRS and you stated your opinions and support on the establishment of CAGRS facilities at busy mixed use airport such as BIA. After you resigned as the Chairman of CASA and before the legislation was finalised during the CASA NPRM process, a number of issues were raised and addressed.

There are three CASR Parts involved in the final CAGRS regulations, namely: Part 139H, Part171and Part172.

CAGRS operates according to Part139H and the service and the operators are audited by CASA on a yearly basis to ensure compliance. As you are aware the requirement to use ATC or Flight Services Trained Personnel was introduced as the CAGRO gives details of relative traffic to all aircraft. The decision on what is relevant traffic means the CAGRS Operator needs to conceptualise the three dimensional terminal area and without error determine possible conflicts and pass this information to the aircraft entering the 30nm zone. The Pilots or Captains then organise their separation from each other, as envisaged this is an alerting service only. The safe operations at ever increasing traffic numbers without an aircraft conflict during the four years of operations of this service is a testament to their operational judgement and the system.



BIA is particularly pleased to note the pilots response contained in the Design Aeronautical Study overwhelmingly supported the success of the CAGRS and its enhancement to safety in the BIA terminal airspace. Without a CAGRS, if all aircraft attempted to do Mandatory calls or recommended calls the terminal frequency would become saturated causing a dangerous hazard just when aircraft are in close proximity and on converging flight paths.

Both of us should be pleased with the survey results, the stakeholders’ comments, the analysis and findings of the DAS and most importantly the safety record of the inaugural terminal airspace service we helped initiate.

Dick, you may not be aware that during the NPRM for Part 171 and 172, some years later, it was apparent that either BIA Pty Ltd needed to be included in the list of ATS providers or the CAGRS excluded from the definitions of ATS. This matter was raised and discussed with senior CASA officials. Finally it was agreed to exclude CAGRS from the definition of ATS as this required less alterations of the proposed legislation. This decision was also influenced by the former CASA decision to include the CAGRS in the Airport Section of the CASR; namely Part 139.

Consequently the lawful operations of CAGRS throughout Australia are governed by CASR 139H and CAGRS is by definition, in Australia, not an ATS as defined by CASR Part 171 and 172. The service as noted by the DAS is comparable to the FAA Airport Advisory Service as regulated by AC90-42F and is therefore NAS compliant.

Unicom under FAA rules does not have authority to advise on relative traffic, it is the AAS also known as Local Airport Advisory that under the FAA’s AC90-42F is authorised to provide this service.

Your comments on Airservices, CASA, and the Canberra Bureaucracy are noted, but personally I find them inaccurate, unhelpful and unkind and upon reflection I am sure you may also see them as a little harsh.

I hope this letter answers your concerns. Please ring me if you have other queries or preferably arrange an informal meeting next time you are in Perth.

Till then,

Yours sincerely



MIKE CAPLEHORN
BE (Civil) MIE Aust CP Eng FAICD
Chairman

should read as CASR PART 139F not H

Chimbu chuckles

Of course perhaps there is a silver lining...the old saw about 'enough rope'.??

I feel we may, once again, be witnessing the biscuit makers self destruction...bit like a dickTam in hot milk

Chuck

Capcom

Woomera & Bino's
Still Mad as hell. (Have regained partial keyboard control though!)

WALLEY2
Bravo Mike!

Someone mentioned Fed Members, Yup, not much doing there. (We do not have time to wait for the hull loss while a committee deliberates to no avail)

AIPA, AFAP, RAAA, Civilair, Military, Flying school operators, Charter operators, CASA operatives (Not suits), ATSB and other parties concerned by this ****e must start coordinating.
Organise a time well in advance (1-2 weeks so the travelling public can make appropriate arrangements), organise a 4 hour window and bring the whole shootin’ match to a grinding halt right around the country. Everyone affected can get together in their localities and vote on resolutions that will make the necessary safety changes happen immediately.

- RAAA might coordinate venue areas
- AIPA, AFAP and Civilair coordinate agenda items and personnel to chair each locality
- Open to persons with industry ID’s (Pilots, ATC’s, FOI’s, etc) as well as the general public who nominate prior for inclusion

Lots of work, it can be done!

Just the prospect of a “simultaneous nationwide airspace safety summit” would get the issues the profile they need!

So what are we going to do?

OverRun

Walley2 posted a letter from Dick Smith above, and the third paragraph of Dick Smith's letter is a quote from the Design Aeronautical Study into Broome International Airport:

“The important distinction to draw is the difference between “airport information” and “Directed Traffic Information”… DTI is more than “airport information” and provides additional lines of defence… In this report, and preliminary aeronautical study, it is the provision of a “Directed Traffic Information” (DTI) service that is significant.”

But this isn't what I read from the actual Design Aeronautical Study into Broome International Airport, at the top of page 37:
http://www.broomeair.com.au/Broome%2...ce%20Study.pdf

The quote in Dick Smith's letter is missing a vital sentence, which to me completely negates the argument of his letter.

I have taken the paragraph from the top of page 37 and highlighted the missing sentence in bold:
How can anyone leave out the key sentence which explains the whole thing, even thought the explanation is the opposite of what they want?

I cannot find any explanation of how this vital sentence could be missing, other than deliberately.

This is a big concern for me. In the matter of aviation, which is a serious matter with safety implications that affect lives, such deliberate manipulation is really a worry. I now feel that any statement by Dick Smith cannot be accepted by me until I have personally checked the references, quotes, 'facts' or statistics to see if any key sentences have been left out. I ask myself, what else has he said that is misleading?

SM4 Pirate

I suspect everything and everytime he opens his mouth...

Look at the 89 incidents posted on another thread all justifying need to bring in more 'E'; only one could have been in anyway assisted his claim.

The_Cutest_of_Borg

This may be a start...

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/

Find your member and the minister.

Tell them of your concerns in moderate language. Explain why you believe that public safety has had a net decrease since the implentation of the NAS.

Then explain that due to your qualifications in the industry, (whatever they are) that the email constitutes Notice. Notice of an impending disaster. Most of them are lawyers so they will know the ramifications of that.

Then tell them that should the unthinkable occur, you will be sending a dated copy of the email to the relevant media organisations, so they cannot say they weren't warned.

As I said, it is a start.

bush pelican

Good summery wyvern

You do apply class E rules in class E airspace but as the ATC manual states and the Americans realize, there IS room for controllers to move and use discretionary commonsense....Freehand it.

There is more than one controller I come across on a regular basis who are sooo laid back yet professional it’s a pleasure to talk to them. A bit of a contrast to some others.

We Aussies have inherited some of the ‘stiff upper lip’ British culture which says, why make anything easy when you can just as easily make it hard or bloody near impossible. We will need another 300 years or so to start saying as the Americans do, “Why can’t I do that, I’ll give it a try” instead of “No you can’t do that, lets make a law against it”

****su-Tonka

Why don’t you start doing all the things you say that you can’t do? (that all the American controllers DO do.) What we are talking about here is assistance, and no, no one will have your nuts if a pilot does something unexpected or stupid. (Same as the situation now in class C or D if someone doesn’t follow instructions.) The standard of negligence is still ‘what would a normal reasonable person do in the same circumstances.’

I don’t agree with all the aspects of the NAS and I’ve had my say, but these decisions are not my responsibility or yours. If **** happens they were warned and we need to get on with our lives.

The ferocity of some writers on this thread is sad to see and will hurt them more than the intended recipients.

Go watch a Faulty Towers video!!!

BP

trafficwas

Capcom,

You have distilled the thoughts of many!!

Just the prospect of a “simultaneous nationwide airspace safety summit” would get the issues the profile they need!

Industrial Law would make such an action illegal if only Unions took such a stance.

If the aviation industry as a whole was to simultaneously stop flying to discuss a serious safety issue, the impact would be overwhelming and probably impossible to prosecute. There has to be a united ground-swell of opposition and not the isolated voices of the pilot and controller unions. If the "silent majority" of aviation was to demonstrate its digust with the behaviour of the government for allowing this debacle to continue and use the extraordinarily tasteless remarks of Dick Smith to galvanise our aviation community into action, then this whole sorry affair might be over.

I am sure that Dick will eventually learn that "truth never harms a cause that is just"

Shitsu-Tonka

Bush Pelican,

If you have been following these threads since early 2003 you will know that most of our time trying to explain the facts to those who do not want to listen has been wasted and fruitless.

You appear to be lining up as yet another one and frankly I can t be bothered.

At the end of the day, and as harsh as this sounds, if/when two come together in E airspace I am still going to be alive - so why is it that I seem to care about this more than those of you who are physically exposed to the risk on a daily basis?

(Oh..... I forgot.... an industrial agenda ... or some such... right Dick?)

I think CivilAir and it's membership have been frankly 'punching above their weight' relative to their personal stake in a worst case outcome.

The support from the compnaies who employ the pilots and carry the passengers has been comparitively tame. Whilst a lot of you may feel equal amounts of anger as the controllers, it is not getting out in the public domain.

I think we are past justifying our case against this 'reform'. NAS is already well proven to be a political animal on a hiding to nothing.

No more arguing about whether it is a farce - just concentrate on ending it.

Kaptin M

Not at all true, bp - Australians are nowhere near as conservative as the Brits, and perhaps even moreso than the Yanks. "Have a go mate" is a well-known Aussie phrase that sums up the willingness of Australians to try something new. As professionals, employed, and thereby intimately involved in Australian aviation, these ARE our responsibilities - after all, these are the tools that we will be given to work with, and from the outset the tradesmen are stating "These are the WRONG tools! If forced to work with these, then the end product WILL be faulty."
How easy is it going to be "getting on with our lives", knowing that we have been responsible for the deaths of several hundred people, because we allowed a design fault to be KNOWINGLY built in to what is often a fragile system?!

Whilst the idea of a stopwork would certainly gain attention, it is going to p!ss a lot of people off unnecessarily.
The idea of choosing some set dates to hold rallies at airports, and to distribute handouts would be just as effective, imo.

safeskiesnow

I will start the ball rolling.

Today I sent the following email to John Anderson.

Adobe Version

Text Version:

The Honourable JOHN ANDERSON MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
Leader of The Nationals
Member for Gwydir

17 April 2004

Dear Minister,

What do you have to say about Dick Smiths comments on radio this week regarding Air Traffic Controllers being 'basically criminals'?

Does this man still enjoy your full support?

Do you agree with the comments made in this transcript?:
http://safeskiesnow.port5.com/4bctranscript.pdf

Do you agree with the facts and observations of his press release?:
http://safeskiesnow.port5.com/mr_dicksmith_1504.pdf

Have you seen what AirServices Australia CEO thinks of Smiths comments?:
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...04/PR10_04.asp

Have you seen the anger from a cross section of the aviation industry?:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=126691

Do you stand by the National Airspace System?
If so will you let it stand up to the scrutiny of an independent inquiry as proposed by The Australian Democrats?:
http://www.democrats.org.au/news/ind...?press_id=3486

Will you respond or even acknowledge the petition sent to you on 1 February 2004?:
http://safeskiesnow.port5.com/petition_uploaded_di1.pdf

Do you acknowledge that you have been now given fair notice of industry concerns?

Yours Sincerely,
(Signed)

If you want to write to John Anderson his email address is [email protected]

If you want to email or write your local member / senator, or ALL of them for that matter I have also made a spreadsheet in Excel Format that you can download from my server:

All Federal Senators (sortable) (Excel .xls) 37kb

All Federal MHR's (sortable) (Excel .xls) 37kb

If you want an email address list to simply drop straight into your email program try these (after opening hit CTRL+A to select all names, then CTRL+C to copy. In your 'To:' box of your email programme place your cursor and select CTRL+V to paste all the addressees in)

All Federal Senators Email List (Text .txt) 2kb

All Federal MHR's Email List (Text .txt) 4kb

I am also writing as much as I can to the Newspaper Editors to let them know how offended I am at the stand Smith has taken. If you feel the same way here is a small list I have got so far - add some more if you can:

The following are the individual email addresses - for a complete cut and paste list that you can put into your email program address block click here Newspaper Email List (.txt file) 1kb


[email protected] Sunday Times
[email protected] The Adelaide Advertiser
[email protected] Hobart Mercury
[email protected] Courier Mail
[email protected] Daily Telegraph
[email protected] Herald Sun
[email protected] The Australian
[email protected] The Weekly Times
[email protected] Townsville Bulletin
[email protected] Gold Coast Bulletin
[email protected] NT News
[email protected] Cairns Post
[email protected] The Age
[email protected] Sydney Morning Herald
[email protected] Canberra Times
[email protected] The Chronicle
[email protected] The West Australian


Be part of the solution - act now!

[email protected]

The Voice

There used to be wording inside of the copies of the rules and reg's relative to the conduct of anything aviation, that basically said that an ATS officers obligation of a duty of care would supercede anything written as a rule or regulation.

Does that little paragraph still get a guernsey these days, or did that get left out in all of the re-writes after all of the reform implementations?


What a bloody sorry state of affairs this has turned into.


I do hope that a snivelling apology from Dick Smith is NOT going to be the only reward for the two controllers ...

ferris

Bush Pelican.
I just cannot let your post go. I feel it goes to the heart of the matter- especially from the view of non-ATC's wondering what all the fuss is about. Keyword; STANDARD. ATC is full of standards. Rules, rules, everywhere. We get formally checked annually on our knowledge and application of the rules, in order to maintain a standard. We are every minute of the working day expected to self-police those same standards, and could be examined at any time on our performence, by either radar/comm tape reply, complaint by a pilot, RA event etc. As some have already pointed out, if you want to 'wing-it', you are potentially creating a more dangerous situation for both yourself, and the pilots/pax you are controlling (re-read earlier posts). If something bad were to happen, you can bet the 'reasonable person' standard would be 'to apply the rules'. If you want the controllers to do something different, have the rules changed. Don't change from Class C to Class E, then say 'just pretend it's like Class C at times'. And it's not all just about liability. It's about professionalism.

Good luck to you all back there. I hope this is sorted out soon. And get some money off the bikkie man in court. It seems to be the only thing he understands.