Dangerous spin by Richard Smith?
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class D Procedures
Walrus7 .... nup .. Class D VFR/IFR
.
Separation standard, maybe a geo clearance limit, prolly not 90% of the time, or;
.. traffic info to the IFR .. segregation (safe geographic) ... then when proximity warrants ATC visual sep .. there are **** loads of ways to skin the cat
.. easy as piss when you know what you are doing (particularly if you have a slave radar to confirm aircraft position)
.
.... diversions all over the place or delays rarely happen .... tis a demonstrable fact ... saying otherwise does not make it fact
.
... did I mention CASR Part 71
... would make this discussion irrelevant .. but that would not be half as fun when grandstanding is the order of the day 
.
Separation standard, maybe a geo clearance limit, prolly not 90% of the time, or;
.. traffic info to the IFR .. segregation (safe geographic) ... then when proximity warrants ATC visual sep .. there are **** loads of ways to skin the cat
.. easy as piss when you know what you are doing (particularly if you have a slave radar to confirm aircraft position)
.
.... diversions all over the place or delays rarely happen .... tis a demonstrable fact ... saying otherwise does not make it fact
.
... did I mention CASR Part 71
... would make this discussion irrelevant .. but that would not be half as fun when grandstanding is the order of the day
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Then if you have an ATC tower its mandatory to have complete fire services as well apparently..
Number one in this is there is no Establishment/Deestablishment criteria for ATC or 'classes' of airspace. The draft part 71 had 3 criteria, total movements/RPT movements/pax numbers; but they were then just trigger points to 'make an assessment' if a TWR is needed (after that assessment) it still could be 5 years after the trigger point was reached. before it actually happened.
Historical data assessed against a benchmark of some sort says risk = X; but what do you do with that?
If TGR, JST, VOZ, QFA all say the demand for PMQ flights is 'going off' and all decide to HUB out of PMQ (extreme example I know) instead of SY (due to delays) at what point would a tower be established; what if they did it for only 3 months?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Renurpp
Hey Renurpp,
Good on you mate.. its a bloody good suggestion. Im not sure it will work, due to operational reasons for the GA contingent but your idea has got some weight to it. If you dont mind, the next meeting I have with these people, I will present it, or perhaps a form of it that will suit the GA a little better..
The rest of you take note... see how he used his brain?? Incredible huh.. Try it a little yourselves.
Lodown.
1)Read the letter first in this post.. it clearly states the cheque was written to Airservices.. Not one man or any other. They could quite easily use it.
2)If you dont think they need a tower in AV.. simply state why, perhaps Dick might see your point of view and agree, or perhaps include that in his processes which create his ideas and thoughts.
3) I am aware of RAPAC and have meeting booked with regarding future of Broome. Im not going to insult anyone and Im sure my input will be valued, unlike yours.
3) Feel contented that your level of maturity and ability to reasonable argue your point has you looking a little below puberty in the mental ages. If you are going to mnake such a strong statement, have some information to back it up. Insults dont cut it.. I dont know about too many others but I wont ever bother reading anything you write again... You have proven your worth in a conversation.
Good on you mate.. its a bloody good suggestion. Im not sure it will work, due to operational reasons for the GA contingent but your idea has got some weight to it. If you dont mind, the next meeting I have with these people, I will present it, or perhaps a form of it that will suit the GA a little better..
The rest of you take note... see how he used his brain?? Incredible huh.. Try it a little yourselves.
Lodown.
1)Read the letter first in this post.. it clearly states the cheque was written to Airservices.. Not one man or any other. They could quite easily use it.
2)If you dont think they need a tower in AV.. simply state why, perhaps Dick might see your point of view and agree, or perhaps include that in his processes which create his ideas and thoughts.
3) I am aware of RAPAC and have meeting booked with regarding future of Broome. Im not going to insult anyone and Im sure my input will be valued, unlike yours.
3) Feel contented that your level of maturity and ability to reasonable argue your point has you looking a little below puberty in the mental ages. If you are going to mnake such a strong statement, have some information to back it up. Insults dont cut it.. I dont know about too many others but I wont ever bother reading anything you write again... You have proven your worth in a conversation.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Milehighsociety, I didn't mean to get you riled. Well...actually I did. You're leaving yourself open to it.
On a serious note on a not so serious thread, do you not see the delicious irony in this subject?
One moment, the industry (with some very vocal figureheads) is calling for AsA to be more commercial; to run at a profit. But for some reason, regulations, traffic and safety studies aside, it is now seen as too commercial and allegedly doesn't want to open a tower because it will lose money. Which is it to be because there is no halfway? An organisation can't be a little bit commercial.
If I offered you a cheque for $100,000 with the stipulation that it be utilised in the purchase of a brand new G-V bizjet, would you take it? If AsA wouldn't accept a cheque directly from Dick, why would they accept a cheque from Dick via Kerry O'Brien?
As for a simple statement as to why Avalon doesn't need a tower...It doesn't have one because it doesn't need one. The onus isn't on me to prove why it doesn't have one. The onus is on the parties who want one to prove that it does.
On a serious note on a not so serious thread, do you not see the delicious irony in this subject?
One moment, the industry (with some very vocal figureheads) is calling for AsA to be more commercial; to run at a profit. But for some reason, regulations, traffic and safety studies aside, it is now seen as too commercial and allegedly doesn't want to open a tower because it will lose money. Which is it to be because there is no halfway? An organisation can't be a little bit commercial.
If I offered you a cheque for $100,000 with the stipulation that it be utilised in the purchase of a brand new G-V bizjet, would you take it? If AsA wouldn't accept a cheque directly from Dick, why would they accept a cheque from Dick via Kerry O'Brien?
As for a simple statement as to why Avalon doesn't need a tower...It doesn't have one because it doesn't need one. The onus isn't on me to prove why it doesn't have one. The onus is on the parties who want one to prove that it does.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, reading my posting, I have perhaps not revealed my stance on the matter. I agree entirely that Avalon should have a tower. Also places like Dubbo, Broome, Port Macquarie, Horn Island, Gove, Mt Isa and I could go on. Your 'proof' is what is flawed Dick. Don't run with that. You would be better served to just be consistent, as it is the US system you want, just get in black and white the things they use to determine tower needs and run with them. You will have 100% support I am sure from all bar those who pay the fees which are INCONSISTENT with the US system.
The GA lobby is very powerful in this land and if you want a system from elsewhere, you must import the whole deal including how it is paid for. There is some interesting reading laying about as to the need for change in the US in this respect. Tough road ahead if you really think you and I will get down it.
The GA lobby is very powerful in this land and if you want a system from elsewhere, you must import the whole deal including how it is paid for. There is some interesting reading laying about as to the need for change in the US in this respect. Tough road ahead if you really think you and I will get down it.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... his reply is so tightly spun ... it resembles a ball of wool 
.
http://www.civilair.asn.au/_document...reply_ymav.pdf
.
Part 71 Dick .... what say you?
.
http://www.civilair.asn.au/_document...reply_ymav.pdf
.
Part 71 Dick .... what say you?
http://dicksmithflyer.com.au/letter_...source=cmailer
Refer the link to Attachment D - the much touted 54 occurrences at Avalon, (16 of which were bird/rabbit strikes). The listed occurrence dates span 14/05/05 to 09/09/07 (sic), in no semblance of chronological order or clerical care. Incidence of incidents possibly as few as one per fortnight. Draw your own conclusions as to value of this data, but be very careful if tempted to attach it to any affadavit or wave it under the nose of a Kerry O'Brien.
On a digressive note Neddy, the fabulous $100,000 cheque that you can also see from it's link, is on a par with the one written to "East Sale Officers' Mess Benevolent Fund" by the late G/C Brian (Blackjack) Walker for, in pounds, ten grand. On the back of this prize souvenir is written "Blackjack pays for the Beaufort he burnt".
Refer the link to Attachment D - the much touted 54 occurrences at Avalon, (16 of which were bird/rabbit strikes). The listed occurrence dates span 14/05/05 to 09/09/07 (sic), in no semblance of chronological order or clerical care. Incidence of incidents possibly as few as one per fortnight. Draw your own conclusions as to value of this data, but be very careful if tempted to attach it to any affadavit or wave it under the nose of a Kerry O'Brien.
On a digressive note Neddy, the fabulous $100,000 cheque that you can also see from it's link, is on a par with the one written to "East Sale Officers' Mess Benevolent Fund" by the late G/C Brian (Blackjack) Walker for, in pounds, ten grand. On the back of this prize souvenir is written "Blackjack pays for the Beaufort he burnt".
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 34 South
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where is my guarantee Dick?
Dear Dick,
4 weeks has come and gone and I still don't have my guarantee.
Is that phone to the Minister not working anymore?
Smoke and Mirrors, Smoke and Mirrors.
4 weeks has come and gone and I still don't have my guarantee.
Is that phone to the Minister not working anymore?
Smoke and Mirrors, Smoke and Mirrors.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why doesnt dick just give his $100,000 to GFS at PCK for an english teacher for their students? Maybe another $100,000 to teach them how to use their radios and AV will be a safe place for all!! 
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,976
Received 102 Likes
on
59 Posts
All I can think of is a concept from some years ago called "affordable safety".
Now where have I heard that before?
Now where have I heard that before?
''If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident''
I sometimes gain the impression that some people have forgotten this old saying.
Kaptain_Kaos, in your post of 22 August you referred to me as
Why do you do this? I would have thought that the experience of Caroline Tulip (see here) would have made it obvious that to anonymously defame a person on PPRuNe is not sensible.
I don’t consider 4 weeks a short time in aviation reform. I would consider a period of 3 months to be pretty short, and I believe that we will have either a tower or a radio operator at the airport within this period (or at least a decision to have one or the other).
By the way, do you support the present operations at Avalon – where there are over one million passenger movements without any local air traffic control, Certified Air/Ground or UNICOM operator?
Do you consider that it is safe for airline traffic to mix with light aircraft without any real way of confirming that radios are working correctly and on the appropriate frequency?
Do you consider it fair that when the military do some training in their King Air, they pay to man the tower – probably something like $300 per hour – but when trusting Australians fly in with Jetstar, there is no one in the tower for a saving of probably 50 cents per passenger?
I find it fascinating that there is not a lot of support for upgrading the airport at Avalon. You may have seen the announcement by the Minister in relation to providing UNICOMs at both Dubbo and Wagga – airports which have about 20% of the amount of passenger movements. Is it simply that the power of Qantas/Jetstar is so great that no one is prepared to stand up to them? Or what could the other reason be?
My little megalomaniac friend
I don’t consider 4 weeks a short time in aviation reform. I would consider a period of 3 months to be pretty short, and I believe that we will have either a tower or a radio operator at the airport within this period (or at least a decision to have one or the other).
By the way, do you support the present operations at Avalon – where there are over one million passenger movements without any local air traffic control, Certified Air/Ground or UNICOM operator?
Do you consider that it is safe for airline traffic to mix with light aircraft without any real way of confirming that radios are working correctly and on the appropriate frequency?
Do you consider it fair that when the military do some training in their King Air, they pay to man the tower – probably something like $300 per hour – but when trusting Australians fly in with Jetstar, there is no one in the tower for a saving of probably 50 cents per passenger?
I find it fascinating that there is not a lot of support for upgrading the airport at Avalon. You may have seen the announcement by the Minister in relation to providing UNICOMs at both Dubbo and Wagga – airports which have about 20% of the amount of passenger movements. Is it simply that the power of Qantas/Jetstar is so great that no one is prepared to stand up to them? Or what could the other reason be?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may have seen the announcement by the Minister in relation to providing UNICOMs at both Dubbo and Wagga
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
The only people in Australia afraid to stand up to Qantas are CASA, Airservices and the entire House of Representatives. The sorry affair surrounding the changes to the Arbey Two approach is evidence of that.
I'll tell you what, Dick. I've changed my mind. You can have your tower at AV provided the following conditions are guaranteed by Act of Parliament.
1. The tower is not responsible for any airspace above 2000 ft AMSL.
2. That no taxpayers money is used to subsidise Qantas and Fox's arrangement.
3. The CLL is not lowered to meet the AV CTZ.
4. No D class is established between the CTZ and the CLL
The point is that, as a private pilot, I don't want to fly around the zone burning my money so a commercial company that spends the equivalent of my entire year's salary on postage stamps can have the air they don't own all to themselves.
If there is to be an increase in safety at AV to tower level then Qantas and Linfox should fund the entire thing and that includes any extra costs born by private operators using the airspace. They don't own the air.
Walrus
The only people in Australia afraid to stand up to Qantas are CASA, Airservices and the entire House of Representatives. The sorry affair surrounding the changes to the Arbey Two approach is evidence of that.
I'll tell you what, Dick. I've changed my mind. You can have your tower at AV provided the following conditions are guaranteed by Act of Parliament.
1. The tower is not responsible for any airspace above 2000 ft AMSL.
2. That no taxpayers money is used to subsidise Qantas and Fox's arrangement.
3. The CLL is not lowered to meet the AV CTZ.
4. No D class is established between the CTZ and the CLL
The point is that, as a private pilot, I don't want to fly around the zone burning my money so a commercial company that spends the equivalent of my entire year's salary on postage stamps can have the air they don't own all to themselves.
If there is to be an increase in safety at AV to tower level then Qantas and Linfox should fund the entire thing and that includes any extra costs born by private operators using the airspace. They don't own the air.
Walrus
Insertnamehere, there was no “concept of affordable safety.” Affordable safety is a truism. It was not new, it was not introduced by me, it was not a “concept.”
I’ll say it again, it simply meant that the money that could be spent on air safety was limited by what those who pay for it could afford. The only reason people can deny such a truism is that they believe the facts should not be known – what other reason could there be?
I have always been proud that I was prepared to state the truth. I remember when I first became Chairman of CAA I asked why there were different regulated levels of safety for different sized aircraft. I was told by a hardened bureaucrat that the level of safety was set by what the passengers could afford, however no one was prepared to admit this. Well, I am, and Insertnamehere, you can deny it for all your life, but sensible people will know that it is a fact of life.
I’ll say it again, it simply meant that the money that could be spent on air safety was limited by what those who pay for it could afford. The only reason people can deny such a truism is that they believe the facts should not be known – what other reason could there be?
I have always been proud that I was prepared to state the truth. I remember when I first became Chairman of CAA I asked why there were different regulated levels of safety for different sized aircraft. I was told by a hardened bureaucrat that the level of safety was set by what the passengers could afford, however no one was prepared to admit this. Well, I am, and Insertnamehere, you can deny it for all your life, but sensible people will know that it is a fact of life.