Dangerous spin by Richard Smith?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey boys and girls.. several things worth mentioning..
In Broome, they have just cracked 350,000 seats per annum. The local papers suggested that federal law dictates that anything over that number requires a control zone.
I am a regular at that aerodrome and can say that most of the time a tower is of little benefit... try cracking in there around lunchtime though.. 2 737's 10 mins apart, a Braz incoming and one outgoing. A customs dash 8 doing all sorts.. A couple of twins some inbound some outbound. Numerous singles in and out bound and a hoard of singles inbound from scenic flights etc, its not uncommon to see 20 rego's on your flight plan all relevant traffic to you.
ATC could do some good there as the advisory tower is getting a little too much to handle at times and there has been conflicts.
Im not to up to scratch at all on AV's operations but could it be something similar?? Ie: a rush hour situation??
Im not happy about it.. as an operator they are no doubt going to slam us for even more rediculous landing fees (already $27 for a C210 and $55 for a twin)and no doubt double parking and rent and probably put parking meters on the bays we pay rent for, not to mention the $10 levy at the entrance gate just to get to our planes. Then if you have an ATC tower its mandatory to have complete fire services as well apparently.. There goes free car parking and an additional weather levy too..
Of course, we can forward these costs on to the customer, but they struggle as it is. We can of course forget aviation all together, I hear coles need vegetable managers..
In the end however, we have a problem. Air safety is paramount. Every accident we have brings in laws and maintenance requirements that cost far more than the implementation of ATC at certain aerodromes that may or may not be required.
Dick has a point.. he has been around for a while and I imagine understand the cost of every crash, not just in lives but in ensuing crap as well. You all have a point as well, towers cost money that eventually drowns GA in favour of airlines, when GA is goine all together, we no longer need the subsidiary towers.
SO:
What do we do. There is a balancing act here. There are two sides to this and if we dont find that delicate balance then someone cocks it up and we will end up with some CASA idea where we have a tower operational only during quiet times with FOI's noting all aircraft arriving during peak hour and sending citations to each rego holder for not arriving in a CASA specified tower hour.. I wouldnt put it past the BOZOS in CASA.
We all have our opinions, so why not discuss, rather than argue. Agree to disagree where necessary and leave the sarcasm and insults for when we have to call CASA over the other rediculous ideas such as ASICS etc.
I want to be in this game for a long time yet.. I love GA and I aint going anywhere else by choice. I want it to be good to me, so help me make it a little better.
Any suggestions by anyone that would avoid a tower at both BRM and AV would be great.. Enough ideas in the melting pot and something positive might just happen.
In Broome, they have just cracked 350,000 seats per annum. The local papers suggested that federal law dictates that anything over that number requires a control zone.
I am a regular at that aerodrome and can say that most of the time a tower is of little benefit... try cracking in there around lunchtime though.. 2 737's 10 mins apart, a Braz incoming and one outgoing. A customs dash 8 doing all sorts.. A couple of twins some inbound some outbound. Numerous singles in and out bound and a hoard of singles inbound from scenic flights etc, its not uncommon to see 20 rego's on your flight plan all relevant traffic to you.
ATC could do some good there as the advisory tower is getting a little too much to handle at times and there has been conflicts.
Im not to up to scratch at all on AV's operations but could it be something similar?? Ie: a rush hour situation??
Im not happy about it.. as an operator they are no doubt going to slam us for even more rediculous landing fees (already $27 for a C210 and $55 for a twin)and no doubt double parking and rent and probably put parking meters on the bays we pay rent for, not to mention the $10 levy at the entrance gate just to get to our planes. Then if you have an ATC tower its mandatory to have complete fire services as well apparently.. There goes free car parking and an additional weather levy too..
Of course, we can forward these costs on to the customer, but they struggle as it is. We can of course forget aviation all together, I hear coles need vegetable managers..
In the end however, we have a problem. Air safety is paramount. Every accident we have brings in laws and maintenance requirements that cost far more than the implementation of ATC at certain aerodromes that may or may not be required.
Dick has a point.. he has been around for a while and I imagine understand the cost of every crash, not just in lives but in ensuing crap as well. You all have a point as well, towers cost money that eventually drowns GA in favour of airlines, when GA is goine all together, we no longer need the subsidiary towers.
SO:
What do we do. There is a balancing act here. There are two sides to this and if we dont find that delicate balance then someone cocks it up and we will end up with some CASA idea where we have a tower operational only during quiet times with FOI's noting all aircraft arriving during peak hour and sending citations to each rego holder for not arriving in a CASA specified tower hour.. I wouldnt put it past the BOZOS in CASA.
We all have our opinions, so why not discuss, rather than argue. Agree to disagree where necessary and leave the sarcasm and insults for when we have to call CASA over the other rediculous ideas such as ASICS etc.
I want to be in this game for a long time yet.. I love GA and I aint going anywhere else by choice. I want it to be good to me, so help me make it a little better.
Any suggestions by anyone that would avoid a tower at both BRM and AV would be great.. Enough ideas in the melting pot and something positive might just happen.
Kaptain Kaos, I don’t actually believe it will be the money that gets an upgrade of the service at Avalon – but definitely the publicity created by the offer will. I guarantee that within a short time there will either be a radio operator in that tower, or air traffic control.
The reason I am so confident is that once some of the management of Jetstar and Qantas have been exposed to what is going on, they will see the sense of following world safe practice and having a system which does not rely on “calling in the blind” and therefore “fail/dangerous.”
Just wait and see.
The reason I am so confident is that once some of the management of Jetstar and Qantas have been exposed to what is going on, they will see the sense of following world safe practice and having a system which does not rely on “calling in the blind” and therefore “fail/dangerous.”
Just wait and see.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Down South
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets take your money and crew the tower at Avalon Mr Smith.
We need how many controllers? Three, maybe four to cover days off, lunch breaks etc. Where are we going to get them?; lets pull them from Melbourne, Essendon and Moorabbin seeing as they live close to Avalon.
Wait a minute, I seem to recall the phrase "Melbourne clearance delivery and ground frequencies combined due staff shortage, expect delays" Broadcast on the Melbourne ATIS.
Now, boys and girls, I believe that if we are having trouble employing staff for the major international towers where the passenger numbers per year are many, many times Avalon's capacity, that is a more major safety concern than the tower at Avalon.
If you want to do something worthwhile with your money Mr Smith I suggest looking at ways to improve the training intake at Airservices Australia.
And I agree with Kaptain_Kaos, judging by how quiet you have been the past few months, it's obviously time for another attention seeking, publicity grabbing statement.
Rant Over
*steps down from the box"
TT
We need how many controllers? Three, maybe four to cover days off, lunch breaks etc. Where are we going to get them?; lets pull them from Melbourne, Essendon and Moorabbin seeing as they live close to Avalon.
Wait a minute, I seem to recall the phrase "Melbourne clearance delivery and ground frequencies combined due staff shortage, expect delays" Broadcast on the Melbourne ATIS.
Now, boys and girls, I believe that if we are having trouble employing staff for the major international towers where the passenger numbers per year are many, many times Avalon's capacity, that is a more major safety concern than the tower at Avalon.
If you want to do something worthwhile with your money Mr Smith I suggest looking at ways to improve the training intake at Airservices Australia.
And I agree with Kaptain_Kaos, judging by how quiet you have been the past few months, it's obviously time for another attention seeking, publicity grabbing statement.
Rant Over
*steps down from the box"
TT
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come On Tt!!
How about some positive suggestions mate.. Give the guy a go. He forked out 100K to help out, yeah there was an element of publicity about it but at least he is doing somthing positive.
How about enough of the rough comments, and a little more of something positive that someone might actually use to solve a problem.
Fair go fellas/Sheilas, there are alot of inherent problems with our aviation industry.. insults arent solving anything.
WAKE UP!!!
How about enough of the rough comments, and a little more of something positive that someone might actually use to solve a problem.
Fair go fellas/Sheilas, there are alot of inherent problems with our aviation industry.. insults arent solving anything.
WAKE UP!!!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 34 South
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dicks' guarantee
Dear Dick,
I will take that guarantee.
Please quantify "short time".
I consider a sort time as 4 weeks.
My little megalomaniac friend. You delude yourself and others on this forum that you posses some magical power. You have neither the the power nor the authority to "guarantee" anything. You only delude yourself when you finally believe these things.
Like I said before, just keep taking the little red ones.
I will take that guarantee.
Please quantify "short time".
I consider a sort time as 4 weeks.
My little megalomaniac friend. You delude yourself and others on this forum that you posses some magical power. You have neither the the power nor the authority to "guarantee" anything. You only delude yourself when you finally believe these things.
Like I said before, just keep taking the little red ones.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but,
He forked out 100K to help out, yeah there was an element of publicity about it but at least he is doing somthing positive.
Grumpy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 35-21 South 149-06 East
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has been interesting reading this thread seeing I started it.
No one has mentioned 'THE STUNT' which why I put it up. A cheque for $100,000 sent to Kerry O'Brien - 7:30 Report - to run the story. This was the spin.
I think Kerry ought to bank it and then donate it to a good cause.
As for the argument about manned towers by ATC - this from a man who was Chairman of the CAA when they closed flight service offices around the country and control towers during the first re-structure of the airspace back in 1991! I had no problem with the policy then and still don't.
It is a bit like the hospital debate going on in northern Tasmania. Conduct an inquiry, make some decisions, implement and the have someone come along a few years later and try and buy some votes.
Jeeees - save me from the pollies.
No one has mentioned 'THE STUNT' which why I put it up. A cheque for $100,000 sent to Kerry O'Brien - 7:30 Report - to run the story. This was the spin.
I think Kerry ought to bank it and then donate it to a good cause.
As for the argument about manned towers by ATC - this from a man who was Chairman of the CAA when they closed flight service offices around the country and control towers during the first re-structure of the airspace back in 1991! I had no problem with the policy then and still don't.
It is a bit like the hospital debate going on in northern Tasmania. Conduct an inquiry, make some decisions, implement and the have someone come along a few years later and try and buy some votes.
Jeeees - save me from the pollies.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silly
Yes the cheque hasnt been cashed, but it is signed and was designed to be cashed. Seems to me it hasnt been cashed out of sheer stubborness..
And I read all the links.. You all gripe and moan and insult .... has one of you made a positive suggestion yet or at least proposed a better idea... has any one of you proposed any idea?? Nothing but insults.. Be very embarrassed boys and girls. I had naturally assumed that those in this industry are meant to be intelligent.. Looks more like a mob of small man syndrome. How depressed it makes me to know you are the future of aviation.
\
From now on, sit in your little knitting circles and argue amoungst yourselves. No one wants to hear your insults. When you can provide positive suggestions or at least add to someone else's.. or present to the public a reasonable point of view, then write it up here.
So far the only person providing positive input is the guy you are cutting down. Be ashamed... Be very ashamed.
Dicks idea may not be the best.. maybe there are better ways to present his idea... but at least he had an idea, and at least he is doing something about it. As for you jokers in this thread, you got nothin'...
And I read all the links.. You all gripe and moan and insult .... has one of you made a positive suggestion yet or at least proposed a better idea... has any one of you proposed any idea?? Nothing but insults.. Be very embarrassed boys and girls. I had naturally assumed that those in this industry are meant to be intelligent.. Looks more like a mob of small man syndrome. How depressed it makes me to know you are the future of aviation.
\
From now on, sit in your little knitting circles and argue amoungst yourselves. No one wants to hear your insults. When you can provide positive suggestions or at least add to someone else's.. or present to the public a reasonable point of view, then write it up here.
So far the only person providing positive input is the guy you are cutting down. Be ashamed... Be very ashamed.
Dicks idea may not be the best.. maybe there are better ways to present his idea... but at least he had an idea, and at least he is doing something about it. As for you jokers in this thread, you got nothin'...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ooooh! Insults? I wasn't aware that Avalon was in need of an idea anyway. What's wrong with the situation now? One or two people think Avalon needs a tower at a time nearing an election and after trying to get a privatised tower at every other regional airport in Australia at several times in the recent past, including Broome. Another 10 or 11 or 20,000 may not necessarily agree.
Cheques, who would you suggest cash the cheque and is that person allowed to bank the cheque by his/her employer? See if you can find it for all the strings.
RAPAC! Ever heard of the term? Well respected industry representation, particularly in Victoria. There was a great deal achieved at these forums, but it's been done quietly. Why is there a need to make a very public and very vocal push for a tower, when the ACF should be effective? Perhaps the industry support does not exist.
Short of ideas?
Here's idea No.1. Go through CASA. I don't mind if there is a tower at Avalon or not if it's warranted, but why the need to circumvent effective processes?
Idea No. 2. Perhaps the money can be donated to GA to mitigate landing fees to the value of $100,000 across the country.
Idea No. 3. Let's all return to our knitting, argueing, beers and rugby. (Not a bad pastime.)
I choose No. 3. You should try it.
Cheques, who would you suggest cash the cheque and is that person allowed to bank the cheque by his/her employer? See if you can find it for all the strings.
RAPAC! Ever heard of the term? Well respected industry representation, particularly in Victoria. There was a great deal achieved at these forums, but it's been done quietly. Why is there a need to make a very public and very vocal push for a tower, when the ACF should be effective? Perhaps the industry support does not exist.
Short of ideas?
Here's idea No.1. Go through CASA. I don't mind if there is a tower at Avalon or not if it's warranted, but why the need to circumvent effective processes?
Idea No. 2. Perhaps the money can be donated to GA to mitigate landing fees to the value of $100,000 across the country.
Idea No. 3. Let's all return to our knitting, argueing, beers and rugby. (Not a bad pastime.)
I choose No. 3. You should try it.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When Dick's National Party mates are run out of office later this year we will never hear from him again.
Get your hand off it Dick and let your brain relax before engaging the fingers.
Get your hand off it Dick and let your brain relax before engaging the fingers.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 'Dick Smith
“fail/safe”, not a “fail/dangerous” system.
For the record, put a tower next to every single piece of bitumen for all I care but make sure you tell everybody what is expected of them and tell them soon enough for them to learn.
BWAHAHAHAHA - no one takes any notice of DICK anymore so he resorts to CHEQUEBOOK JOURNALISM - except he is the one writing the cheques!
Hilarious stuff - sounds like a monty python sketch.
Hilarious stuff - sounds like a monty python sketch.
Barkly1992, you state:
It was (and still is) about moving the resources so we can save the most lives. Now that Avalon Airport has about 1 million passengers per year, I believe it should have either ATC or at least a radio operator in the tower – i.e. one that could provide a UNICOM service.
I have always been totally consistent – put the money where the risk is. That is, not Class C above Albury Tower (where there is virtually no collision risk), but controlled airspace in the airport area at Avalon – where the risk is far higher. Everything I have ever said and written was because I took good advice in those early years and was told that our system (even then) was “upside down.”
For example, we had mandatory radio and full position reporting for VFR above 5,000 feet enroute, when of course the collision risk was higher below 5,000 feet. We built a brand new tower at Gove when there was virtually no collision risk there, but we did not man a tower at busier airports. We purchased one of the best radar systems in the world, but basically below 12,500 feet (and then below 8,500 feet after some changes when I was Chairman in 1998) we did not use the radar properly.
It is all about moving the resources to where the risk is greatest.
this from a man who was Chairman of the CAA when they closed flight service offices around the country and control towers during the first re-structure of the airspace back in 1991!
I have always been totally consistent – put the money where the risk is. That is, not Class C above Albury Tower (where there is virtually no collision risk), but controlled airspace in the airport area at Avalon – where the risk is far higher. Everything I have ever said and written was because I took good advice in those early years and was told that our system (even then) was “upside down.”
For example, we had mandatory radio and full position reporting for VFR above 5,000 feet enroute, when of course the collision risk was higher below 5,000 feet. We built a brand new tower at Gove when there was virtually no collision risk there, but we did not man a tower at busier airports. We purchased one of the best radar systems in the world, but basically below 12,500 feet (and then below 8,500 feet after some changes when I was Chairman in 1998) we did not use the radar properly.
It is all about moving the resources to where the risk is greatest.
Tobzalp, I certainly don’t agree that if pilots involved were correctly trained that the mistakes would never be made in the first place. For example, the Airbus that took off from Avalon (giving its calls on the wrong CTAF frequency) would clearly have correctly trained pilots.
I bet you will find that it was a simple human factor problem, or maybe something wrong with the equipment. Can I ask someone from CASA or the ATSB to tell us what exactly happened? We can all learn from this.
I bet you will find that it was a simple human factor problem, or maybe something wrong with the equipment. Can I ask someone from CASA or the ATSB to tell us what exactly happened? We can all learn from this.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: moree caravan park
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sorry, maybe I have stepped in at the wrong time here but there are a few points here that are quite confusing for my little brain.
A man has given away 100K to at the very least create some publicity about a potential problem and at the very best get some people into gear to fix it.
Maybe I'm not reading between the lines but to me that sounds like a good thing.
Maybe I'm just not angry enough to know it all.
A man has given away 100K to at the very least create some publicity about a potential problem and at the very best get some people into gear to fix it.
Maybe I'm not reading between the lines but to me that sounds like a good thing.
Maybe I'm just not angry enough to know it all.
Mile High
Here's an idea. As the aiport operator raise the landing fees considerably within 30 mins either side of a JET RPT planned arrival and departure. That will decrease the aerodrome traffic at peak periods.
It won't cost any one a cent if there smart, and it certainly will remove the need for a tower.
I spend 50/50 in controlled airspace to "G" non controlled airspace during climb and descent flying RPT Jet. All of my near misses including RA's have been in non radar "C" airspace, with the exception of one RA in Darwin "C" airspace. Does that say anything at all?
It won't cost any one a cent if there smart, and it certainly will remove the need for a tower.
I spend 50/50 in controlled airspace to "G" non controlled airspace during climb and descent flying RPT Jet. All of my near misses including RA's have been in non radar "C" airspace, with the exception of one RA in Darwin "C" airspace. Does that say anything at all?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Benurpp (PpruneB?)
A great concept that will have no effect at Avalon. AV is not a public airport; it is owned by Linfox and you're unlikely to get permission to use it. You have to remember that the 'peak' periods at Avalon carry less traffic than the peak periods at most average CTAFs. Raising the landing fees to reduce traffic is pointless when all you need to do is refuse entry.
Potential traffic conflict at AV is very low given TCAS and virtually no private GA inbounds. There are GA overflies, but the sensible ones track overhead the field in airspace that JQ and their mates don't use.
I've tracked over AV several times when JQ was rolling and we just talked to each other and stayed clear. Nice bunch of blokes they have been too. Any input by a tower would have increased safety by refusing me a clearance and sending me northward or southward until the step was cleared.
If a tower was put in at AV, you can guarantee there would be no E over D there either, creating another roadblock for VFR traffic.
Walrus
A great concept that will have no effect at Avalon. AV is not a public airport; it is owned by Linfox and you're unlikely to get permission to use it. You have to remember that the 'peak' periods at Avalon carry less traffic than the peak periods at most average CTAFs. Raising the landing fees to reduce traffic is pointless when all you need to do is refuse entry.
Potential traffic conflict at AV is very low given TCAS and virtually no private GA inbounds. There are GA overflies, but the sensible ones track overhead the field in airspace that JQ and their mates don't use.
I've tracked over AV several times when JQ was rolling and we just talked to each other and stayed clear. Nice bunch of blokes they have been too. Any input by a tower would have increased safety by refusing me a clearance and sending me northward or southward until the step was cleared.
If a tower was put in at AV, you can guarantee there would be no E over D there either, creating another roadblock for VFR traffic.
Walrus
I wasn't thinking AV sorry. I see no need for a tower there.
I was answering Mile Highs comments regarding Broome where there are multiple GA movements around the same time as RPT Jets.
I was answering Mile Highs comments regarding Broome where there are multiple GA movements around the same time as RPT Jets.