Dangerous spin by Richard Smith?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently the BADGR9 straight in approach to RWY 27 at ML is the same, but no complaints about that.
I also understand that the ARBEY arrival was at it's worst (in terms of needing to get lower) when the surface wind was a southerly courtesy of the 'sea breeze' where the upper winds were still from the north.
Still doesn't excuse due process and if what you say is true then it should be examined; but ultimately I suspect it still would have been changed.
Barkly1992, the 7.30 Report sent the cheque back to me with a very nice letter telling me how they couldn’t get any professional pilots to stand up and say that there were potential safety problems at Avalon.
Imagine that – how gutless. I’ve had a number of professional pilots contact me and ask if I would do something about getting either a UNICOM operator or a tower at Avalon, but no one is game to stand up and say the truth.
This is a damning reflection of the intimidation which is put on professional pilots by airlines that are desperate to maximise profits.
I would imagine these are the very pilots who said that the airspace above places like Tamworth and Albury must be Class C for safety reasons – but we can have terminal airspace at a place like Avalon, with over 1 million passenger movements per year and lots of overflying GA traffic, without a UNICOM, without any controlled airspace and without even a transponder requirement.
Those in power then tell lies by saying that no air traffic control or other service is required at Avalon because it is covered by the radar at Tullamarine. We all know that it is not covered by radar at low levels, and the most likely place for a midair collision will be on the runway or close to it.
By the way, I’m back in Australia waiting for the vehicle to be fixed. Hopefully that will happen in the next week or so.
Imagine that – how gutless. I’ve had a number of professional pilots contact me and ask if I would do something about getting either a UNICOM operator or a tower at Avalon, but no one is game to stand up and say the truth.
This is a damning reflection of the intimidation which is put on professional pilots by airlines that are desperate to maximise profits.
I would imagine these are the very pilots who said that the airspace above places like Tamworth and Albury must be Class C for safety reasons – but we can have terminal airspace at a place like Avalon, with over 1 million passenger movements per year and lots of overflying GA traffic, without a UNICOM, without any controlled airspace and without even a transponder requirement.
Those in power then tell lies by saying that no air traffic control or other service is required at Avalon because it is covered by the radar at Tullamarine. We all know that it is not covered by radar at low levels, and the most likely place for a midair collision will be on the runway or close to it.
By the way, I’m back in Australia waiting for the vehicle to be fixed. Hopefully that will happen in the next week or so.
Dick Smith
So you stated here
Yet when confronted with the fact that a study has in fact been performed, you now admit you not only knew about it but had seen it
I think you've been caught out.
Which colours anything else you claim as "facts".
And should a safety study focus on the cost of a Tower? Shouldn't the focus be on safety i.e. analysis of traffic levels, mix etc. etc. to determine & dictate the level of air traffic service required?
So you stated here
Qantas/Jetstar has enough influence to stop the study from being performed.
The study was a sham.
Which colours anything else you claim as "facts".
And should a safety study focus on the cost of a Tower? Shouldn't the focus be on safety i.e. analysis of traffic levels, mix etc. etc. to determine & dictate the level of air traffic service required?
CaptainMidnight, the study I am referring to (and you know it) is the study entitled Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria for Airport Traffic Control Towers.
Why do you defend the indefensible? Airservices has historically used this proper cost benefit study, which is based on the FAA system. Why suddenly not use it for Avalon Tower?
The actual “study” they performed is not a study at all. It is simply a documentation of some opinions of people who don’t want a tower there for obvious reasons. That is, it will reduce their profits and bonuses.
You ask:
Let me put you through the basics. A tower will improve safety. Why then don’t we have a control tower at every airport in Australia? The reason is that the cost of the control tower will add to the air ticket prices and could reduce participation levels. In the case of Avalon, with 1 million passenger movements per annum, there will be no measurable decrease in participation levels, but an increase in safety.
The cost benefit study that Airservices has consistently used for over a decade does focus on traffic levels and mix, as well as the cost of providing the service.
I am sure you understand that the only reason we do not have a tower at every airport in Australia is because of affordability. If it is not that, what other reason is there?
I find it fascinating that no one comes on this thread and supports the obvious. That is, some level of service - whether it be Class E (which brings in a mandatory transponder and can be operated remotely) or a Certified Air/Ground Operator or a UNICOM or a Class D tower – will all improve safety and are easily affordable.
CaptainMidnight, stand up for what is right and fair. Airservices in the past two years have gone down a track of creating “sham” safety studies to preserve the status quo, or to reverse decisions that have been made objectively.
PPRuNe is read by thousands of aviators, most of whom I’m sure are looking at this and realising that what I am saying is correct. That is, the decision in relation to Avalon is made for the airlines economic future, not in the interests of passengers, using proper objective reasoning.
Why do you defend the indefensible? Airservices has historically used this proper cost benefit study, which is based on the FAA system. Why suddenly not use it for Avalon Tower?
The actual “study” they performed is not a study at all. It is simply a documentation of some opinions of people who don’t want a tower there for obvious reasons. That is, it will reduce their profits and bonuses.
You ask:
And should a safety study focus on the cost of a Tower?
The cost benefit study that Airservices has consistently used for over a decade does focus on traffic levels and mix, as well as the cost of providing the service.
I am sure you understand that the only reason we do not have a tower at every airport in Australia is because of affordability. If it is not that, what other reason is there?
I find it fascinating that no one comes on this thread and supports the obvious. That is, some level of service - whether it be Class E (which brings in a mandatory transponder and can be operated remotely) or a Certified Air/Ground Operator or a UNICOM or a Class D tower – will all improve safety and are easily affordable.
CaptainMidnight, stand up for what is right and fair. Airservices in the past two years have gone down a track of creating “sham” safety studies to preserve the status quo, or to reverse decisions that have been made objectively.
PPRuNe is read by thousands of aviators, most of whom I’m sure are looking at this and realising that what I am saying is correct. That is, the decision in relation to Avalon is made for the airlines economic future, not in the interests of passengers, using proper objective reasoning.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick; I agree with your sentiments; but I guess I'm always wary of your actual agenda.
Just so we know exactly whether it is economics or safety, what is the landing cost of a A320 at AMAV when the TOWER is active?
probably has nothing to do with
Can we see that document? What are the trigger points within it; or is simply the 8 lines from the FAA model, which means it needs to pay it's way in terms of revenue vs cost or the operators and/or aerodrome must support the cost of service provision; which is why YBHM survived back in the Ansett days.
Has this "criteria" been used in anger since YSWG was closed?
Just so we know exactly whether it is economics or safety, what is the landing cost of a A320 at AMAV when the TOWER is active?
The cost benefit study that Airservices has consistently used for over a decade does focus on traffic levels and mix, as well as the cost of providing the service.
Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria for Airport Traffic Control Towers.
Has this "criteria" been used in anger since YSWG was closed?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it fascinating that no one comes on this thread and supports the obvious. That is, some level of service - whether it be Class E (which brings in a mandatory transponder and can be operated remotely) or a Certified Air/Ground Operator or a UNICOM or a Class D tower – will all improve safety and are easily affordable.
The very service Dick is now arguing for is
AFIZ!!!!!!!!
So the problem is easily solved, let’s regurgitate AFIZesss….right, where's that ol' AOI (coz if you keep them long enough).
Right, now, who used to run AFIZ?....oh, oh...
Jacko,
Spot on.
I always thought that the remote AFIZ system had to be THE most cost efficient form of traffic information.
Dick is so gung ho to have some semi-qualified goon from the local aero-club running a UNICOM because that's how it's done in Seppo land (and therefore MUST be the best way!!) when it was his reforms that did away with AFIZ, which provided a MUCH better service.
I used to operate into Ayes Rock when they dragged that stupid little trailer-back tower out (is THAT still in use?). Manned by an ex FSO, doing EXACTLEY the same thing, EXCEPT he couldn't give you your Airways clearence or take flight plan ammendements.
The system was changed based on the starry-eyed assumption that everyone would flock to the UNICOM idea.
Well guess what.....
Spot on.
I always thought that the remote AFIZ system had to be THE most cost efficient form of traffic information.
Dick is so gung ho to have some semi-qualified goon from the local aero-club running a UNICOM because that's how it's done in Seppo land (and therefore MUST be the best way!!) when it was his reforms that did away with AFIZ, which provided a MUCH better service.
I used to operate into Ayes Rock when they dragged that stupid little trailer-back tower out (is THAT still in use?). Manned by an ex FSO, doing EXACTLEY the same thing, EXCEPT he couldn't give you your Airways clearence or take flight plan ammendements.
The system was changed based on the starry-eyed assumption that everyone would flock to the UNICOM idea.
Well guess what.....
ανώνυμος
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Perth
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it amazing... We still have Dick making claims that the study was either subverted or flawed or anything else to undermine it. Dick, as I said earlier either put up or shut up. Accuse the people you are saying did wrong or back off. If you can show flaws in the process, give us the actual examples. Hard facts not just rhetoric. If you have proof of wrongdoing post the details. It seems to me you are just working the publicity machine and are depending on smoke and mirrors. You nearly had me for a while there!
Show us where you get this from....
Have any of the pilots you claim contacted you since got back to you and said they were intimidated? Or is that just your slant on things?
The requirements you claim are in place for the establishment of a tower, I assume, require a study and yet you claim...
Surely the ground rules for this type of study are documented. So if the study didn't follow the correct proceedure I'm sure you will be able to tell us where it was remiss. Or you can point the finger at the person who didn't set the criteria in stone. Wouldn't have been you by any chance would it?
I think the readers of this thread are more informed and aware than you give them credit for!
The wings await. Stage that is not aircraft.
Show us where you get this from....
This is a damning reflection of the intimidation which is put on professional pilots by airlines that are desperate to maximise profits.
The requirements you claim are in place for the establishment of a tower, I assume, require a study and yet you claim...
The actual “study” they performed is not a study at all. It is simply a documentation of some opinions of people who don’t want a tower there for obvious reasons. That is, it will reduce their profits and bonuses.
I think the readers of this thread are more informed and aware than you give them credit for!
The wings await. Stage that is not aircraft.
ανώνυμος
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Perth
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a passing thought.
I once, some time ago made the mistake of leaping to the defence of another on this website because his arguments seemed so reasoned. I couldn't understand why others attacked him so.
I don't know when the Govenor will be released from prison but I will forever be more skeptical of the motives of people on the internet.
No inference should be taken from this post it is simply put out there as a timely reminder.
I once, some time ago made the mistake of leaping to the defence of another on this website because his arguments seemed so reasoned. I couldn't understand why others attacked him so.
I don't know when the Govenor will be released from prison but I will forever be more skeptical of the motives of people on the internet.
No inference should be taken from this post it is simply put out there as a timely reminder.
Dick Smith, you said:
Why do you defend the indefensible? Airservices has historically used this proper cost benefit study, which is based on the FAA system. Why suddenly not use it for Avalon Tower?
Let's get it straight again .... CASA is the regulator. CASA will decide what service is required at Avalon. Airservices will provide that service (if it is an ATS one).
Why do you defend the indefensible? Airservices has historically used this proper cost benefit study, which is based on the FAA system. Why suddenly not use it for Avalon Tower?
Let's get it straight again .... CASA is the regulator. CASA will decide what service is required at Avalon. Airservices will provide that service (if it is an ATS one).
SWORD,
My intention was to re-state the legal accountabilities. It is difficult to take Mr Smith's points seriously if he continues to ignore the regulatory framework.
You, Mr Sword, are too cynical by far
... CASA has obviously made a decision already ... maintain the status quo.
My intention was to re-state the legal accountabilities. It is difficult to take Mr Smith's points seriously if he continues to ignore the regulatory framework.
You, Mr Sword, are too cynical by far
... CASA has obviously made a decision already ... maintain the status quo.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
Obviously Kerry didn't ask me. I would be happy to go on the record and make such an assertion.
the 7.30 Report sent the cheque back to me with a very nice letter telling me how they couldn’t get any professional pilots to stand up and say that there were potential safety problems at Avalon.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airservices and Unicom
Wizofoz:
I agree totally that UNICOM is best provided by the local airport operator and/or aircraft operators, while delivery of CAGRS should remain a dedicated and certified function, so on what basis could Airservices Australia possibly be interested in trialling the provision of UNICOM at Dubbo and Wagga (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/unicom/default.asp)?
Is this another agenda by DS to eventually get rid of CAGRS at BME and AYE (and other locations) which, in some respects replicates the AFIZ service, and replace CAGRS with an Airservices provided/modified UNICOM?
Dick is so gung ho to have some semi-qualified goon from the local aero-club running a UNICOM because that's how it's done in Seppo land (and therefore MUST be the best way!!) when it was his reforms that did away with AFIZ, which provided a MUCH better service.
Is this another agenda by DS to eventually get rid of CAGRS at BME and AYE (and other locations) which, in some respects replicates the AFIZ service, and replace CAGRS with an Airservices provided/modified UNICOM?
Wonder indeed, QSK.
From what was said by ASA recently at WG & DU the ASA Unicom will be a higher level than the "standard" i.e. the operators will undergo some weeks training by ASA and provide traffic information. Sounds like a CAGRS ..........
I don't know why we would want to have two different levels of Unicom, particularly one different from that in the U.S. Canada & N.Z.
If the standard and service are basically that of a CAGRS, why not call it that?
From what was said by ASA recently at WG & DU the ASA Unicom will be a higher level than the "standard" i.e. the operators will undergo some weeks training by ASA and provide traffic information. Sounds like a CAGRS ..........
I don't know why we would want to have two different levels of Unicom, particularly one different from that in the U.S. Canada & N.Z.
If the standard and service are basically that of a CAGRS, why not call it that?
Australian is best?
In some regards, the world can learn a fair bit from Australia. In so many other ways it would reward Australia handsomely to take a good hard look at what other people around the world are doing*
A
*or not doing - ASICs and security fences, are two examples that spring to mind
A
*or not doing - ASICs and security fences, are two examples that spring to mind
.. HAT .. COAT ... DOOR 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why introduce a “****com” (Super High In-Tensity Communications Area) providing traffic, weather, avgas, tea and biccys?
Look at what a CA/GRO needs:
The primary purpose of a CA/GRS is to enhance the safety of air transport aircraft operations by the provision of relevant traffic information. This aspect of the service requires CA/GROs to have had specialised training and experience. Therefore, applicants for the issue of a CA/GRO Certificate must hold, or have held within the last ten years, an ICAO recognised Air Traffic Controller licence or an Australian Flight Service Officer licence.
(source CASA Manual of Standards Part 139)
Look at what a UNICOM does:
Unicom (Universal Communications) services are non-ATS radio communication services provided on an MBZ frequency or CTAF to enhance the value of information normally available about a non-controlled aerodrome. A Unicom service is not a Certified Air/Ground Radio Service.
The primary function of the frequencies (MBZ/CTAF) used for Unicom services is to provide the means for pilots to exchange traffic information for separation purposes. Unicom services, being a secondary use of these frequencies, must not inhibit the exchange of aircraft to aircraft traffic information.
(source CASA Manual of Standards Part 139)
So here’ the punch line…
Seeing as most of the people staffing CA/GRO are ex-FSOs and we are fast approaching 10 years since Flight Service was terminated (July 2000), oh, sorry, “incorporated into ATC” in the name of providing a “better service”, these people will become in-eligible to hold CA/GRO certificates. Hence the need to dream up another dog’s breakfast in the name of re-inventing a service that was successfully provided for many years but removed under the pretence of some idiot’s (or thicket thereof) idea of reform and rolled out over the 90’s.
Quite simple really….SNAFU!!!!
Look at what a CA/GRO needs:
The primary purpose of a CA/GRS is to enhance the safety of air transport aircraft operations by the provision of relevant traffic information. This aspect of the service requires CA/GROs to have had specialised training and experience. Therefore, applicants for the issue of a CA/GRO Certificate must hold, or have held within the last ten years, an ICAO recognised Air Traffic Controller licence or an Australian Flight Service Officer licence.
(source CASA Manual of Standards Part 139)
Look at what a UNICOM does:
Unicom (Universal Communications) services are non-ATS radio communication services provided on an MBZ frequency or CTAF to enhance the value of information normally available about a non-controlled aerodrome. A Unicom service is not a Certified Air/Ground Radio Service.
The primary function of the frequencies (MBZ/CTAF) used for Unicom services is to provide the means for pilots to exchange traffic information for separation purposes. Unicom services, being a secondary use of these frequencies, must not inhibit the exchange of aircraft to aircraft traffic information.
(source CASA Manual of Standards Part 139)
So here’ the punch line…
Seeing as most of the people staffing CA/GRO are ex-FSOs and we are fast approaching 10 years since Flight Service was terminated (July 2000), oh, sorry, “incorporated into ATC” in the name of providing a “better service”, these people will become in-eligible to hold CA/GRO certificates. Hence the need to dream up another dog’s breakfast in the name of re-inventing a service that was successfully provided for many years but removed under the pretence of some idiot’s (or thicket thereof) idea of reform and rolled out over the 90’s.
Quite simple really….SNAFU!!!!
Dick, you said that:
For whom will you be voting in the upcoming Federal election? Those in power?
Why did you accept a position on a 'task force' set up by those in power?
Those in power then tell lies…
Why did you accept a position on a 'task force' set up by those in power?