Dangerous spin by Richard Smith?
Grumpy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 35-21 South 149-06 East
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dangerous spin by Richard Smith?
Reported in Crikey today:
14. Dick Smith's $100,000 message for Kerry O'Brien: fix the skies
Luke McKenna writes:
Dick Smith, former chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority and Civil Aviation Safety Authority, has hit out at Airservices Australia and the ABC’s The 7:30 Report in an unusual -- and expensive -- stunt designed to raise awareness of his ongoing air traffic safety concerns.
Smith has sent a letter to The 7:30 Report ’s Kerry O’Brien, along with a cheque for $100,000, to highlight his allegations that the program has been "captured" by Airservices Australia's spin doctors.
The letter (click here for Dick Smith's perspective in full) weaves through accusations of interview footage being twisted or dumped, important arguments suppressed and story tips ignored in order to protect AA and its alleged lapse in air traffic control measures at Avalon Airport -- Smith argued in a press release last year that "Avalon Airport, near Melbourne has now operated for two years with over 1 million passengers in "dirt road" uncontrolled airspace."
Here are some excerpts:
… Kerry, I believe you are really letting Australia down. There will unfortunately be blood on your hands when the inevitable accident occurs and it becomes apparent that you have not only suppressed stories on the need for air traffic control but you have also run stories which are quite dishonest and inaccurate and have prevented airports being upgraded to controlled airspace.
… I sincerely believe that because of the growing number of movements and the complete lack of any air traffic control or even a local radio operator at Avalon, it will only be months before there will be a major mid-air collision with hundreds of lives being lost. Because of that, I am prepared to pay for the tower (that exists already) to be manned. I enclose a cheque for $100,000 made out to Airservices Australia.
I am not sending it directly to them because they will not accept it and they will use their spin doctors to distort my offer and stop any change.
I hope this cheque will give you a chance to do a proper story about the neglect.
…I have explained to you before that there is a financial benefit for the Airservices Australia executives not to have the tower operating. This is because all small towers lose money for Airservices and the executives depend on a substantial part of their pay on the bonus of the profits of the organisation.
…I trust you will contact Airservices and I look forward to your major story on this issue and the handing over of the cheque to get air traffic control operating at Avalon.
Yours faithfully
Dick Smith
Kerry O’Brien was in transit and unable to comment prior to publication.
14. Dick Smith's $100,000 message for Kerry O'Brien: fix the skies
Luke McKenna writes:
Dick Smith, former chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority and Civil Aviation Safety Authority, has hit out at Airservices Australia and the ABC’s The 7:30 Report in an unusual -- and expensive -- stunt designed to raise awareness of his ongoing air traffic safety concerns.
Smith has sent a letter to The 7:30 Report ’s Kerry O’Brien, along with a cheque for $100,000, to highlight his allegations that the program has been "captured" by Airservices Australia's spin doctors.
The letter (click here for Dick Smith's perspective in full) weaves through accusations of interview footage being twisted or dumped, important arguments suppressed and story tips ignored in order to protect AA and its alleged lapse in air traffic control measures at Avalon Airport -- Smith argued in a press release last year that "Avalon Airport, near Melbourne has now operated for two years with over 1 million passengers in "dirt road" uncontrolled airspace."
Here are some excerpts:
… Kerry, I believe you are really letting Australia down. There will unfortunately be blood on your hands when the inevitable accident occurs and it becomes apparent that you have not only suppressed stories on the need for air traffic control but you have also run stories which are quite dishonest and inaccurate and have prevented airports being upgraded to controlled airspace.
… I sincerely believe that because of the growing number of movements and the complete lack of any air traffic control or even a local radio operator at Avalon, it will only be months before there will be a major mid-air collision with hundreds of lives being lost. Because of that, I am prepared to pay for the tower (that exists already) to be manned. I enclose a cheque for $100,000 made out to Airservices Australia.
I am not sending it directly to them because they will not accept it and they will use their spin doctors to distort my offer and stop any change.
I hope this cheque will give you a chance to do a proper story about the neglect.
…I have explained to you before that there is a financial benefit for the Airservices Australia executives not to have the tower operating. This is because all small towers lose money for Airservices and the executives depend on a substantial part of their pay on the bonus of the profits of the organisation.
…I trust you will contact Airservices and I look forward to your major story on this issue and the handing over of the cheque to get air traffic control operating at Avalon.
Yours faithfully
Dick Smith
Kerry O’Brien was in transit and unable to comment prior to publication.
VH-Cheer Up, thanks for your support. If you want to read the full letter, see here. I suggest you especially look at Attachment D showing the incidents that are now occurring at Avalon. It is amazing that the ATSB does not say anything.
Guest
Posts: n/a
What about Broome? I understand that this is arguably the most dangerous airport in Australia; multiple jet RPT flights, VFR lighties, no radar, no tower, TPRXs not required...
I can't see what's "dangerous" about Dicks' assertions; certainly not 'spin'. I actiually agree with him.
I can't see what's "dangerous" about Dicks' assertions; certainly not 'spin'. I actiually agree with him.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's the problem that I have: most of the incidents in Attachment D don't have anything to do with the classification of the airspace. It even mentions the Connie shutting down No.2 at the Avalon Airshow this year when the tower was most certainly manned. Then there's the birdstrikes. Do the birds know it's uncontrolled airspace? If you thresh out some of the chaff in the list of incidents, not a lot of it has anything to do with the classification of the airspace at Avalon.
As a simple GA pilot, I find myself transitting AV often, and the ability to fly right over the top is just brilliant. No doubt a tower wouldn't let us do that (as they don't at Melbourne without climbing to 6000 first). We have no chance of regulating for drongoes. Those who transit AV without calling probably transit BDG, SHT, LTV and all the other major CTAFs without calling also. Flying silent over one of the latter is much more dangerous that flying silent over AV because the traffic concentration is higher. Come to think if it, it's more dangerous overflying PCK!
If there are any JQ boys in the air at the time, we've always managed to sort things out without any risk to anyone. Is there really a need for a tower at AV given that the majority of the incidents here wouldn't have been avoided had it been manned?
Walrus
As a simple GA pilot, I find myself transitting AV often, and the ability to fly right over the top is just brilliant. No doubt a tower wouldn't let us do that (as they don't at Melbourne without climbing to 6000 first). We have no chance of regulating for drongoes. Those who transit AV without calling probably transit BDG, SHT, LTV and all the other major CTAFs without calling also. Flying silent over one of the latter is much more dangerous that flying silent over AV because the traffic concentration is higher. Come to think if it, it's more dangerous overflying PCK!
If there are any JQ boys in the air at the time, we've always managed to sort things out without any risk to anyone. Is there really a need for a tower at AV given that the majority of the incidents here wouldn't have been avoided had it been manned?
Walrus
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the last 12 months, I have probably flown over (through) AV about 20 odd times at different times of the day.
In all cases I have made the recommended broadcasts and, to the best of my memory, I have only ever presented a traffic confliction once to any other aircraft.
The rest of the time, the silence has been golden. I certainly wouldn't think that AV even warrants CA/GRS - let alone a tower!
In all cases I have made the recommended broadcasts and, to the best of my memory, I have only ever presented a traffic confliction once to any other aircraft.
The rest of the time, the silence has been golden. I certainly wouldn't think that AV even warrants CA/GRS - let alone a tower!
Walrus 7, you don’t link the bird strikes with someone in the tower. I understand from talking to air traffic controllers that at controlled airports they often advise the safety officer that there are birds at the threshold if there is a jet on its way in. It appears that he drives out and encourages the birds to move away. It sounds to me as if that is worthwhile for safety.
QSK, are you really suggesting that airports with up to a million passenger movements per year can operate without any air traffic control and without even a UNICOM operator? What would happen if your radio stopped transmitting when you were making the recommended broadcast? How would you know? The carrier would still operate the beep-back, but there may be no modulation.
So if Avalon doesn’t require a tower for safety, why do we have towers at places like Coffs Harbour and Hamilton Island? Is it sensible to place our towers where air traffic controllers want to live and work, not where the risk is highest?
QSK, are you really suggesting that airports with up to a million passenger movements per year can operate without any air traffic control and without even a UNICOM operator? What would happen if your radio stopped transmitting when you were making the recommended broadcast? How would you know? The carrier would still operate the beep-back, but there may be no modulation.
So if Avalon doesn’t require a tower for safety, why do we have towers at places like Coffs Harbour and Hamilton Island? Is it sensible to place our towers where air traffic controllers want to live and work, not where the risk is highest?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Yes, I see your point on the birds. But why can't JQ's ground staff do that now? Birds are a problem at every airport in the world, but how many of them need a tower for it. Hamilton Is and Coffs probably need towers because the number of movements dictates it. I haven't checked on that but I suspect that's the case.
Walrus
Yes, I see your point on the birds. But why can't JQ's ground staff do that now? Birds are a problem at every airport in the world, but how many of them need a tower for it. Hamilton Is and Coffs probably need towers because the number of movements dictates it. I haven't checked on that but I suspect that's the case.
Walrus
airports with up to a million passenger movements per year can operate without any air traffic control and without even a UNICOM operator?
The level of ATS & airspace classification is dictated by traffic levels. And even the FAA don't consider UNICOMs in determining the level of ATS required at a particular AD.
What would happen if your radio stopped transmitting when you were making the recommended broadcast? How would you know?
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keeerist, that is the sort of letter that my email spam control sends to the Junk bin with all the other offers of gazillions of dollars if I send my bank details or register as a bazillion dollar lottery winner.
I guess Kerry's email spam control does the same and if Kerry is as smart as I think he is, to stop the voices in his head too, he'll keep on his aluminium foil hat with the spiky horns.
Blood on his hands indeed.
Spin you say, spinning spin doesn't cut it either.
Mr Smith grow up, you do your oftentimes worthy causes no good at all with that sort of tripe. There may well be some sense in what you say but it sure is hard to find it amongst the rhetoric.
I guess Kerry's email spam control does the same and if Kerry is as smart as I think he is, to stop the voices in his head too, he'll keep on his aluminium foil hat with the spiky horns.
Blood on his hands indeed.
Spin you say, spinning spin doesn't cut it either.
Mr Smith grow up, you do your oftentimes worthy causes no good at all with that sort of tripe. There may well be some sense in what you say but it sure is hard to find it amongst the rhetoric.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it is supposedly uncontrolled, how come one of the incidents is the Avalon ADC not coordinating with ML App?
I just finished reading the list Attachment D. Every single one that is not a bird running into a plane is a case of someone doing the wrong thing. There is not one instance of everybody doing what they were supposed to do and something stuffing up. An example of this would be "at 2312 C172 broadcast intentions on CTAF as required. A320, after departing without hitting any birds and making all broadcasts as required received an RA based on the proximity of the C172'.
Grasping at straws again.
I just finished reading the list Attachment D. Every single one that is not a bird running into a plane is a case of someone doing the wrong thing. There is not one instance of everybody doing what they were supposed to do and something stuffing up. An example of this would be "at 2312 C172 broadcast intentions on CTAF as required. A320, after departing without hitting any birds and making all broadcasts as required received an RA based on the proximity of the C172'.
Grasping at straws again.
I'm at a loss to understand how the manning of the tower at Avalon would increase safety levels.
Is it going to fix bird strikes, Rabbit strikes and mid-Hare collisions?
I suggest that the C172 "Contamination" could be fixed by more English classes at YPCK. They won't talk because they don't understand and don't know what to say or do in reply anyway. But perhaps I'm being unfair.
I've never had any trouble transiting over YMAV, but I have had to do an orbit from time to time over that way to obtain some separation from the odd C172 who either can't or won't communicate.
Is it going to fix bird strikes, Rabbit strikes and mid-Hare collisions?
I suggest that the C172 "Contamination" could be fixed by more English classes at YPCK. They won't talk because they don't understand and don't know what to say or do in reply anyway. But perhaps I'm being unfair.
I've never had any trouble transiting over YMAV, but I have had to do an orbit from time to time over that way to obtain some separation from the odd C172 who either can't or won't communicate.
CaptainMidnight, you state:
I’m now looking at my latest CASA document on the matter. It is headed Air Traffic Control Towers Decision Criteria September 1998.
My case rests.
Surely it is clear how a tower or a UNICOM operator would know who is responsible for a carrier without any modulation – they would simply ask. More to the point, the pilot giving the call wouldn’t get an answer from the UNICOM or the tower, so they would know there was a problem and change to the other radio. Surely that is pretty basic.
Number of pax per year is irrelevant in dictating the level of ATS. That's just scare tactics to the public who don't know any better.
The purpose of this paper
This paper advocates that Australia moves from the present cost benefit criterion for ATC towers to a criterion based on the number of fare paying passengers protected by the ATC tower service.
This paper advocates that Australia moves from the present cost benefit criterion for ATC towers to a criterion based on the number of fare paying passengers protected by the ATC tower service.
Surely it is clear how a tower or a UNICOM operator would know who is responsible for a carrier without any modulation – they would simply ask. More to the point, the pilot giving the call wouldn’t get an answer from the UNICOM or the tower, so they would know there was a problem and change to the other radio. Surely that is pretty basic.
so what would I do
Tobzalp, no, I’m not grasping at straws again. Surely one of the advantages of air traffic control in the tower is that there is a “fail/safe”, not a “fail/dangerous” system. Are you suggesting that the airport cannot be made safer with air traffic controllers manning the tower? Or do you think the 30 or 40 cents per head it would cost is too expensive?
Squawk6969 – der! You would check your microphone selector, the speaker selector, check your frequency was correct, and then you would be extremely vigilant knowing that you had a faulty radio. If you were landing, you would watch for a green light from the tower if it was manned.
By the way, where is Civil Air? Why haven’t they made a statement supporting the fact that ATC should man Avalon tower for safety purposes?
By the way, where is Civil Air? Why haven’t they made a statement supporting the fact that ATC should man Avalon tower for safety purposes?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where is Civil Air?
Like me, probably sitting in front of the TV with a cold beer or two getting ready for the Rugby World Cup. They know that any serious indication of funding for a tower at Avalon will be followed immediately by a huge bellow for privatised tower services and will have nothing to do with them.
Like me, probably sitting in front of the TV with a cold beer or two getting ready for the Rugby World Cup. They know that any serious indication of funding for a tower at Avalon will be followed immediately by a huge bellow for privatised tower services and will have nothing to do with them.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know exactly what the criterion for a tower is nowadays? I was always under the impression that it was 100,000 movements, but if that was the case then we'd only have 10 towers in the country, and none at Darwin, Hobart, Essendon and Canberra among most of the regionals.
Walrus
Walrus
You would check your microphone selector, the speaker selector, check your frequency was correct, and then you would be extremely vigilant knowing that you had a faulty radio. If you were landing, you would watch for a green light from the tower if it was manned
