25 years of holding at Williamtown
It would be really worth my while for me to come up to date again on how the ATC side works. The last time I sat at a console was before TAAATS was introduced.
Dick, it WILL be worth your while. Believe me
Witnessed the start of the transition at Cairns the first night of operations in the BN centre. Old and the New. What a difference! Going from the old tubes to the new computer based system. Like a TRS80 compared to a modern Pentium on steroids...lots of steroids!
I have PMd No Further Requirements to make arrangements
Given your past record of castigation of ASA, the CEO and his managers .....
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the Dog house
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair NFR did offer and Im sure protocols will be followed.
That said, I hope management dont hijack the visit as DS may not get to see exactly what goes on at the coal face - pros and cons.
During a quiet moment maybe NFR and DS can discuss some of the problems associated with VFR ops within Mil airspace !
Hope the visit goes well!
DogGone
That said, I hope management dont hijack the visit as DS may not get to see exactly what goes on at the coal face - pros and cons.
During a quiet moment maybe NFR and DS can discuss some of the problems associated with VFR ops within Mil airspace !
Hope the visit goes well!
DogGone
Thread Starter
Ozbusdriver, a number of years ago I was shown through the Brisbane Centre but I was not able to sit at a console – which would be really worthwhile as I have spent thousands of hours in the cockpit and I would like to be updated as to what is happening on the console with TAAATS.
I’m also interested in the point that was made to me by a South African air traffic control manager, who thought that we would be more efficient if we had more than one person at a console. That is an interesting point which I would like to discuss.
CaptainMidnight, it is very sad but I found it nearly impossible to arrange a meeting with people from Airservices Australia. This started many years before I became vocal about the management.
For example, on many occasions I have attempted to arrange an appointment with the Chairman of Airservices, Mr Nick Burton Taylor. I have never been able to arrange this – even though I would be happy to go anywhere for the meeting. It is almost as if he has been told, “Chairman, make sure you never talk to Dick Smith because he may put some ideas into your head which we don’t want you to have.”
I know a couple of the AsA Board members – I think their terms expire shortly. In the past I would phone them from time to time to discuss aviation.. It was obvious that they were very concerned about talking to me. It was as if they had been told, “Whatever you do, don’t talk to Dick Smith.”
When I was the Chairman of CAA and CASA, I encouraged my Board members to talk to anyone they could to get as much direct information as possible. I believed this was an important responsibility for a Board member – that is, not just believe what you are being told by the management or your Chairman.
I have always believed that in relation to aviation safety, everything should be completely open – i.e. no secrets. It is the best way of spending the finite dollar most effectively.
I’m also interested in the point that was made to me by a South African air traffic control manager, who thought that we would be more efficient if we had more than one person at a console. That is an interesting point which I would like to discuss.
CaptainMidnight, it is very sad but I found it nearly impossible to arrange a meeting with people from Airservices Australia. This started many years before I became vocal about the management.
For example, on many occasions I have attempted to arrange an appointment with the Chairman of Airservices, Mr Nick Burton Taylor. I have never been able to arrange this – even though I would be happy to go anywhere for the meeting. It is almost as if he has been told, “Chairman, make sure you never talk to Dick Smith because he may put some ideas into your head which we don’t want you to have.”
I know a couple of the AsA Board members – I think their terms expire shortly. In the past I would phone them from time to time to discuss aviation.. It was obvious that they were very concerned about talking to me. It was as if they had been told, “Whatever you do, don’t talk to Dick Smith.”
When I was the Chairman of CAA and CASA, I encouraged my Board members to talk to anyone they could to get as much direct information as possible. I believed this was an important responsibility for a Board member – that is, not just believe what you are being told by the management or your Chairman.
I have always believed that in relation to aviation safety, everything should be completely open – i.e. no secrets. It is the best way of spending the finite dollar most effectively.
Dear Tailwheel,
Mr Smith stepped down from the CAA in Feb 92. The report that recommended the breakup was handed to parliament in May 1995. It was therefore started well before then. If you think that Dick didn't have any thing to do with it, IMO you're dreaming.
Dick stated that I "tend to attack him personally". My comment was merely a tongue-in-cheek response. And I did put a couple of smilies indicating what I was on about...
I always do. Strident criticism of a person's beliefs is not playing the man. If I was to accuse him of being a #$%^& *)(&^ !@#$$%^ and a #$%^^&, then fair enough. But that is not the case.
Bloggs.
Mr Smith had nothing to do with creating Airservices Australia. That was done by a Labor Government splitting the CAA apart - well after Mr Smith's reign.
And if you're thinking of attacking anyone, I recommend you re-think your strategy
Play the ball - not the man!.
Bloggs.
Moderator
Capn Bloggs.
If my memory serves me correctly, the division of CAA into CASA and AsA in 1995 was the direct result of recommendations made following the Monarch Airlines accident in 1993 and the Seaview accident in October 1994.
It was a recommendation of the Staunton Report and an expedient political decision made by the then Labour Government, to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest between the regulator, CASA, and the Government's profitable business entity, AsA.
All these events occurred well after Mr Smith left the CAA in early 1992.
The thread topic is "25 years of holding at Williamtown". Can we stick to the that topic please?
Tail Wheel
If my memory serves me correctly, the division of CAA into CASA and AsA in 1995 was the direct result of recommendations made following the Monarch Airlines accident in 1993 and the Seaview accident in October 1994.
It was a recommendation of the Staunton Report and an expedient political decision made by the then Labour Government, to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest between the regulator, CASA, and the Government's profitable business entity, AsA.
All these events occurred well after Mr Smith left the CAA in early 1992.
The thread topic is "25 years of holding at Williamtown". Can we stick to the that topic please?
Tail Wheel
CaptainMidnight, it is very sad but I found it nearly impossible to arrange a meeting with people from Airservices Australia.
When you've made accusations of corruption, union dominance and favouritism etc. against ASA CASA ATSB etc. over many years it is little wonder they won't engage you.
AOPA and other industry groups and organisations have the right idea - they work with the authorities and each other with a spirit of cooperation.
As a one man band representing no-one, not listening to others and forcing your viewpoint on the industry, you will continue to get nowhere.
Thread Starter
CaptainMidnight, you state:
In your dreams – and if you are going to attack me in such a personal way, don’t be a coward, put your name to the attacks. I have criticised AsA, CASA and the ATSB, but I put my name to my comments. These are all wealthy and powerful organisations that can stand up for themselves and answer my claims if they are incorrect. If I say anything against them which is wrong or defamatory, they can take the necessary action.
You are dreaming because you probably don’t realise that behind the scenes, I have a lot of support. This is confirmed by the continuous emails I receive from everyone from air traffic controllers and professional pilots to the general public. I suggest that you walk around with me next time I visit a GA airport. Many people come up and show their support.
By the way, any success I have achieved in life has come from listening to others, asking advice, and then deciding which is the correct advice. Obviously from your posts, the advice I take doesn’t comply with what you believe is correct – that is why you say I’m “not listening to others.” You actually mean that “I’m not acting on your viewpoint.”
In relation to the statement that I am forcing my viewpoint on the industry, where is the evidence of this? Are you referring to NAS? You are ignoring the fact that NAS was developed by Qantas and myself, and then chosen as the airspace to proceed with by the Aviation Reform Group – which included the current Chief of Defence. As I have stated before, do you really believe that my influence is so great that he, and others on the ARG, were forced to comply with my viewpoint?
You state:
Wouldn’t this be great if it got any results? During the last 10 years, AOPA has done a tremendous amount of work to try to make changes to assist general aviation. What are the results? Just about absolutely zero. AOPA and its members have been exploited in every way by the Canberra system.
For example, AOPA agreed to a unique mandatory transponder requirement in Class E airspace so that their members would not be unnecessarily delayed (and have extra costs) when wanting to fly across the top of airports such as Albury and Coffs Harbour – just as happens in most other countries in the world. The agreed airspace was then reversed by Airservices, but Airservices left the mandatory transponder requirement in, which resulted in AOPA being clearly exploited.
Before the last AOPA President (Ron Bertram) died, he was negotiating with Airservices to prevent the increase of Class C airspace to the north of Melbourne. He was led to believe that if he used behind the scenes consultation, this would not go ahead as it did not comply with Government policy nor the system used in any other modern aviation country. Of course it was all a con. Airservices went ahead with the extra Class C anyway and ignored the objective reasons that AOPA put forward.
CaptainMidnight, I think I know why you post anonymously. You are obviously close to Airservices or some other Canberra bureaucracy which has been successful in making sure that general aviation is destroyed in every way possible. Most would agree that there has now been nearly two decades of a total “one way ratchet” exploitation of GA in this country.
I’ve had someone do a summary of your posts on this site. This is what the person has come up with. “He’s a real fundamentalist who resists change. He dislikes NAS, Class E, UNICOMs, Flight Following and MOAs. He likes LLAMP, ADS-B and CAGROs. He wants AOPA to have a spirit of cooperation with Airservices and keep everything out of the public eye. He is anti-CASA, anti-Dick Smith and pro-Airservices.”
I’m amazed that Airservices won’t even give AOPA one slight success, so they can say to their members, “Look, we actually got something for you.” At the present time, the terminal fees at airports like Bankstown – and other GA airports – are increasing by nearly 50% over 3 years. Flightwatch is in the process of being removed, which will further disadvantage GA as the airlines generally have the ARINC network or similar to print out weather details in the cockpit. I understand that Airservices are now looking at bringing in higher charges for flight planning and SARTIMEs for GA aircraft.
Of course, Airservices will convince the genuine AOPA Board that all discussions on this should be done “secretly” behind the scenes. By keeping it out of the media they will then make a unilateral decision to do exactly what is in their self-interest.
I can see why Airservices, and their supporters such as yourself, are doing this – destroying the GA industry. There are good commercial imperatives, as when fewer people fly in GA (either privately or in business) they will tend to fly in the airlines. This means more bonuses for the Airservices Australia executives. And of course, at $100 to $190 per hour, more restrictive rules and cost recovery requirements for CASA will do further damage to AOPA members.
As a one man band representing no-one, not listening to others and forcing your viewpoint on the industry, you will continue to get nowhere.
You are dreaming because you probably don’t realise that behind the scenes, I have a lot of support. This is confirmed by the continuous emails I receive from everyone from air traffic controllers and professional pilots to the general public. I suggest that you walk around with me next time I visit a GA airport. Many people come up and show their support.
By the way, any success I have achieved in life has come from listening to others, asking advice, and then deciding which is the correct advice. Obviously from your posts, the advice I take doesn’t comply with what you believe is correct – that is why you say I’m “not listening to others.” You actually mean that “I’m not acting on your viewpoint.”
In relation to the statement that I am forcing my viewpoint on the industry, where is the evidence of this? Are you referring to NAS? You are ignoring the fact that NAS was developed by Qantas and myself, and then chosen as the airspace to proceed with by the Aviation Reform Group – which included the current Chief of Defence. As I have stated before, do you really believe that my influence is so great that he, and others on the ARG, were forced to comply with my viewpoint?
You state:
AOPA and other industry groups and organisations have the right idea - they work with the authorities and each other with a spirit of cooperation.
For example, AOPA agreed to a unique mandatory transponder requirement in Class E airspace so that their members would not be unnecessarily delayed (and have extra costs) when wanting to fly across the top of airports such as Albury and Coffs Harbour – just as happens in most other countries in the world. The agreed airspace was then reversed by Airservices, but Airservices left the mandatory transponder requirement in, which resulted in AOPA being clearly exploited.
Before the last AOPA President (Ron Bertram) died, he was negotiating with Airservices to prevent the increase of Class C airspace to the north of Melbourne. He was led to believe that if he used behind the scenes consultation, this would not go ahead as it did not comply with Government policy nor the system used in any other modern aviation country. Of course it was all a con. Airservices went ahead with the extra Class C anyway and ignored the objective reasons that AOPA put forward.
CaptainMidnight, I think I know why you post anonymously. You are obviously close to Airservices or some other Canberra bureaucracy which has been successful in making sure that general aviation is destroyed in every way possible. Most would agree that there has now been nearly two decades of a total “one way ratchet” exploitation of GA in this country.
I’ve had someone do a summary of your posts on this site. This is what the person has come up with. “He’s a real fundamentalist who resists change. He dislikes NAS, Class E, UNICOMs, Flight Following and MOAs. He likes LLAMP, ADS-B and CAGROs. He wants AOPA to have a spirit of cooperation with Airservices and keep everything out of the public eye. He is anti-CASA, anti-Dick Smith and pro-Airservices.”
I’m amazed that Airservices won’t even give AOPA one slight success, so they can say to their members, “Look, we actually got something for you.” At the present time, the terminal fees at airports like Bankstown – and other GA airports – are increasing by nearly 50% over 3 years. Flightwatch is in the process of being removed, which will further disadvantage GA as the airlines generally have the ARINC network or similar to print out weather details in the cockpit. I understand that Airservices are now looking at bringing in higher charges for flight planning and SARTIMEs for GA aircraft.
Of course, Airservices will convince the genuine AOPA Board that all discussions on this should be done “secretly” behind the scenes. By keeping it out of the media they will then make a unilateral decision to do exactly what is in their self-interest.
I can see why Airservices, and their supporters such as yourself, are doing this – destroying the GA industry. There are good commercial imperatives, as when fewer people fly in GA (either privately or in business) they will tend to fly in the airlines. This means more bonuses for the Airservices Australia executives. And of course, at $100 to $190 per hour, more restrictive rules and cost recovery requirements for CASA will do further damage to AOPA members.
Dick,
Come on! Airservices followed this policy:
Just because you disagree, you throw a paddy.
That is the most disgusting thing I have read recently. For it you should be condemned. Using your own henchmen to research people... 
Airservices went ahead with the extra Class C anyway and ignored the objective reasons that AOPA put forward.
I have achieved in life has come from listening to others, asking advice, and then deciding which is the correct advice.
I’ve had someone do a summary of your [Capt Midnight's] posts on this site. This is what the person has come up with. “He’s a real fundamentalist who resists change. He dislikes NAS, Class E, UNICOMs, Flight Following and MOAs. He likes LLAMP, ADS-B and CAGROs. He wants AOPA to have a spirit of cooperation with Airservices and keep everything out of the public eye. He is anti-CASA, anti-Dick Smith and pro-Airservices.”
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: North of the 26th and not above FL010
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone remember the good ol days.
We learnt to fly. Hated yet respected DCA. Spoke in clear concise English and spoke only when required to........ and everyone got on with the job without malice etc.
Good thing I'm out in the sticks........
We learnt to fly. Hated yet respected DCA. Spoke in clear concise English and spoke only when required to........ and everyone got on with the job without malice etc.
Good thing I'm out in the sticks........
Well a new low
Having someone do assessments on peoples views and opinions on this site and getting an opinion on them and then in addition posting that opinion on this site.
If the government or a business did that I'm sure there would be a hell to pay.
A sad sad development for PPRUNE I'm afraid.
What did she say about me?????
Having someone do assessments on peoples views and opinions on this site and getting an opinion on them and then in addition posting that opinion on this site.
If the government or a business did that I'm sure there would be a hell to pay.
A sad sad development for PPRUNE I'm afraid.
What did she say about me?????
Folks,
Back to Williamtown.
The scheduled NSW RAPAC meeting was held yesterday at YSBK, and what an interesting meeting it was. The civilian numbers were almost matched by the military numbers, and it was not for want of the usual civil attendance.
AOPA made a very reasonable and reasoned request re. Willie, to meet a wall of RAAF intransigence or indifference, or both.
The RAAF responses were, in my opinion, not entirely coherent, swapping backwards and forwards between a position of "it's all the civilian traffic's fault, anyway", then detailing F/A-18 VFR departure procedures that keep them well above the coastal VFR lane, then telling us about why such huge airspace is required by the RAAF (compared, say, the the RAF, the USAF etc).
When the matter of the particular Australia Day incident was raised, the reaction, from a young lady who we presumed to be a Willie controller, was in my opinion extraordinarily emphatic, bordering on volcanic,disputing the versions of events of the two (civil) aircraft involved. I, for one, was left in no doubt as to the continuance of the attitude that I have experienced so often ----- the legitimate rights (and it is a right for an Australian citizen to used Australian airspace, let's not hear that it is a "privilege" to be bestowed or withheld by some middle ranking civil or military officer) of ALL civil traffic to not be unnecessarily impeded simply does not wash. As an aside, for those of you wedded to the "privilege" approach, please refresh yourselves with existing Government policy and present and pending changes.
The RAAF, as represented yesterday, certainly are very reticent about sharing airspace with other traffic (including the Army). A proposal for Airservices to rationalise some of the steps to the west of Richmond was not greeted kindly by the RAAF representatives. Traffic levels and any consideration of risk management didn't get a look in.
Even more extraordinary, a proposal for a flying training area for the Army, to the west and south-west of Camden, accepted without dissent by all civilian representative, met with the suggestion, by one RAAF officer,that the whole area (which is the main S/SW VFR route for GA traffic in and out of the Sydney basin) become a RESTRICTED area north of the Hume Highway, from just west of Wilton, down to almost Yass, beyond Crookwell, and almost up to Oberon --- Which would leave another "lane" (presumably) over Katoomba, for VFR traffic travelling west.
The RAAF approach to establishing restricted airspace, with (in this case) little apparent regard for low level civil traffic, is certainly (long over) due for a shake-up.
Happy days, how little progress we have made, Richmond and Willie airspace was on the agenda of the first RAPAC I ever attended, and that is a long, long time ago, much longer than 25 years.
Happy Days ??
Tootle pip !!
Back to Williamtown.
The scheduled NSW RAPAC meeting was held yesterday at YSBK, and what an interesting meeting it was. The civilian numbers were almost matched by the military numbers, and it was not for want of the usual civil attendance.
AOPA made a very reasonable and reasoned request re. Willie, to meet a wall of RAAF intransigence or indifference, or both.
The RAAF responses were, in my opinion, not entirely coherent, swapping backwards and forwards between a position of "it's all the civilian traffic's fault, anyway", then detailing F/A-18 VFR departure procedures that keep them well above the coastal VFR lane, then telling us about why such huge airspace is required by the RAAF (compared, say, the the RAF, the USAF etc).
When the matter of the particular Australia Day incident was raised, the reaction, from a young lady who we presumed to be a Willie controller, was in my opinion extraordinarily emphatic, bordering on volcanic,disputing the versions of events of the two (civil) aircraft involved. I, for one, was left in no doubt as to the continuance of the attitude that I have experienced so often ----- the legitimate rights (and it is a right for an Australian citizen to used Australian airspace, let's not hear that it is a "privilege" to be bestowed or withheld by some middle ranking civil or military officer) of ALL civil traffic to not be unnecessarily impeded simply does not wash. As an aside, for those of you wedded to the "privilege" approach, please refresh yourselves with existing Government policy and present and pending changes.
The RAAF, as represented yesterday, certainly are very reticent about sharing airspace with other traffic (including the Army). A proposal for Airservices to rationalise some of the steps to the west of Richmond was not greeted kindly by the RAAF representatives. Traffic levels and any consideration of risk management didn't get a look in.
Even more extraordinary, a proposal for a flying training area for the Army, to the west and south-west of Camden, accepted without dissent by all civilian representative, met with the suggestion, by one RAAF officer,that the whole area (which is the main S/SW VFR route for GA traffic in and out of the Sydney basin) become a RESTRICTED area north of the Hume Highway, from just west of Wilton, down to almost Yass, beyond Crookwell, and almost up to Oberon --- Which would leave another "lane" (presumably) over Katoomba, for VFR traffic travelling west.
The RAAF approach to establishing restricted airspace, with (in this case) little apparent regard for low level civil traffic, is certainly (long over) due for a shake-up.
Happy days, how little progress we have made, Richmond and Willie airspace was on the agenda of the first RAPAC I ever attended, and that is a long, long time ago, much longer than 25 years.
Happy Days ??
Tootle pip !!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lead Sled now let me try logic, the RAAF have less aircraft than 20 years ago, the aircraft they have are higher performance than 20 years ago, and now they need more dedicated training restricted airspace to ground level.
As a scotsman might say, it makes nae sense.
As a scotsman might say, it makes nae sense.
You are dreaming because you probably don’t realise that behind the scenes, I have a lot of support. This is confirmed by the continuous emails I receive from everyone from air traffic controllers
).
I’ve had someone do a summary of your posts on this site. This is what the person has come up with
Please never stop posting on Pprune Dick - the whole industry over the last couple of years has been able to get a great insight into the "Dick Smith Way" - and maybe you are confusing "support" with "Yes, Dick, whatever you say Dick (walks off shaking head)".
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: All over the place
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled
The minutes of RAPAC meetings are available here:
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...ac/default.asp
I sure am keen to read the minutes of the one you just described when it gets published!
Nothing like putting a name to vitriole!
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...ac/default.asp
I sure am keen to read the minutes of the one you just described when it gets published!
When the matter of the particular Australia Day incident was raised, the reaction, from a young lady who we presumed to be a Willie controller, was in my opinion extraordinarily emphatic, bordering on volcanic,disputing the versions of events of the two (civil) aircraft involved. I, for one, was left in no doubt as to the continuance of the attitude that I have experienced so often
Last edited by Track Coastal; 8th Feb 2008 at 10:19.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the Dog house
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having seen the minutes of a RAPAC meeting regarding TVL and North Queensland aeronautical matters a few years ago on the net, I assume that the minutes of this meeting will also be published in the public domain.
Anyone ??
DogGone
Anyone ??
DogGone
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yoiks! - Traffic!
Now, what ya gotta remember fly boys and gals, is that the knucks are a bit ropey near the ground -below 1500'.Above that they are second to none.
SO - don't expect any joy from the Military steel traps when it comes to giving anything away, which they don't really own anyway.
We, the taxpayers, own it. We authorise the Mil. to use it on our behalf to protect the nation, via the Min of Def.
Meanwhile let's enjoy watching the knucks at play.