Who is Mike Taylor? He should be famous.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good onya Dick.
Far too many 'tall-poppy slashers' in here that don't have the balls to either commit themselves one way or another on an issue or the spine to get off their arses and do something about it.
Whilst I don't always support all of your initiatives, I do admire your willingness to stand up and be counted. I and others could do far worse than to model ourselves on your example -for better or worse at least we would be achieving something, more than sniping from the sidelines, safe in the seclusion of our ivory towers and assumed professional gravitas.
With regard this issue: I wonder if the problem is not deeper -a systemic fault of centralised government to appoint career bureaucrats to positions of far-reaching power and influence light-years beyond their training, experience or ability? Certainly it appears to be the case in NZ where until relatively recently we (briefly) had a maritime administrator at the helm of CAA -and man, did he ever make some brave statements in the media!!! The current incumbent in that role, whilst on the face of it more suited by virtue of his background, still reeks of a merely 'politically expedient' appointee -one there merely to enact the desires of his political masters who, lets face it, bend with whichever way the perceived political wind is blowing today. Staying in the NZ context, it will take years for the country to rid itself of the malign influence and cronyism embedded throughout the halls of power by Helen Clark. Let's hope that process is given a good start in November.
Politicians, like a babies nappies, should be changed regularly -and for the same reason!
I agree that these bureaucrats must be publicly recognised and held publicly accountable for their actions and failures. This existing "Yes, Minister" ethos within the public service has survived far too long, through far too many changes of government and must be rooted out for the public to receive the government they deserve.
Far too many 'tall-poppy slashers' in here that don't have the balls to either commit themselves one way or another on an issue or the spine to get off their arses and do something about it.
Whilst I don't always support all of your initiatives, I do admire your willingness to stand up and be counted. I and others could do far worse than to model ourselves on your example -for better or worse at least we would be achieving something, more than sniping from the sidelines, safe in the seclusion of our ivory towers and assumed professional gravitas.
With regard this issue: I wonder if the problem is not deeper -a systemic fault of centralised government to appoint career bureaucrats to positions of far-reaching power and influence light-years beyond their training, experience or ability? Certainly it appears to be the case in NZ where until relatively recently we (briefly) had a maritime administrator at the helm of CAA -and man, did he ever make some brave statements in the media!!! The current incumbent in that role, whilst on the face of it more suited by virtue of his background, still reeks of a merely 'politically expedient' appointee -one there merely to enact the desires of his political masters who, lets face it, bend with whichever way the perceived political wind is blowing today. Staying in the NZ context, it will take years for the country to rid itself of the malign influence and cronyism embedded throughout the halls of power by Helen Clark. Let's hope that process is given a good start in November.
Politicians, like a babies nappies, should be changed regularly -and for the same reason!
I agree that these bureaucrats must be publicly recognised and held publicly accountable for their actions and failures. This existing "Yes, Minister" ethos within the public service has survived far too long, through far too many changes of government and must be rooted out for the public to receive the government they deserve.
Last edited by RadioSaigon; 24th Sep 2008 at 01:46.
Thread Starter
So it is all agreed. We should stop whinging about Bruce Bryon and Greg Russell and concentrate on the person who is really calling the shots – Mike Taylor.
Let’s make him really famous and make sure that he is held publicly accountable for his actions. Who knows? We may find that he comes up to the bar and supports some really important change.
Whatever way it goes, we must make sure from now on that he is the person who is held accountable, as it is obvious that he is the person who is controlling the aviation regulatory system at this present time.
Let’s make him really famous and make sure that he is held publicly accountable for his actions. Who knows? We may find that he comes up to the bar and supports some really important change.
Whatever way it goes, we must make sure from now on that he is the person who is held accountable, as it is obvious that he is the person who is controlling the aviation regulatory system at this present time.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dick,
Whilst I have great respect for your achievments in business and aviation I would like to air my concerns as a young Licensed Aircraft Engineer whilst you were head of CASA.
Firstly, you set back many a young budding engineer by increasing basic exam costs from 5$ an exam to over 100$ an exam. Causing great financial hardship on young apprentices who were on bugger all!
Scondly, your single focus was on pilots with little regard for other avaition professionals. It still amazes me that the well rested flying hour limited pilot can have his primary flight controls rigged by an engineer who has been working a double shift and on way to another 80 hour week. Or the ATC langishes over some outdated equipment/ system also greatly fatigued over skill shortages.
Whilst I know this is the Pilot's rumour network, it surprises me that people at CASA do not look at the entire picture.
My 2 cents worth
Whilst I have great respect for your achievments in business and aviation I would like to air my concerns as a young Licensed Aircraft Engineer whilst you were head of CASA.
Firstly, you set back many a young budding engineer by increasing basic exam costs from 5$ an exam to over 100$ an exam. Causing great financial hardship on young apprentices who were on bugger all!
Scondly, your single focus was on pilots with little regard for other avaition professionals. It still amazes me that the well rested flying hour limited pilot can have his primary flight controls rigged by an engineer who has been working a double shift and on way to another 80 hour week. Or the ATC langishes over some outdated equipment/ system also greatly fatigued over skill shortages.
Whilst I know this is the Pilot's rumour network, it surprises me that people at CASA do not look at the entire picture.
My 2 cents worth
Thread Starter
Here are some important things about Mike Taylor.
Mike Taylor knows that there are airline passenger carrying aircraft in Australia with between 10 and 30 passengers that would not legally be allowed to operate in any other country in the world. This is because there is a requirement for TCAS to be fitted to such aircraft in other countries. Not so in Australia. Mike Taylor could make a phone call that would get an NPRM instigated straight away so Australia harmonised with the rest of the world – he doesn’t.
Mike Taylor knows that the radar is not used correctly in Australia. We have already lost six people at Benalla and no doubt the next incident will be an airline accident, probably at Proserpine with possibly 100 passengers dead. Mike Taylor knows all about this because I have told him. It is a fact that the ATSB did not make a recommendation to better use the radar when finalising the report on the six needless deaths at Benalla.
I challenge the many media people who read this site, to get an interview with Mike Taylor about these important issues that are the very basis of aviation safety in Australia. I wish you luck.
Mike Taylor knows that there are airline passenger carrying aircraft in Australia with between 10 and 30 passengers that would not legally be allowed to operate in any other country in the world. This is because there is a requirement for TCAS to be fitted to such aircraft in other countries. Not so in Australia. Mike Taylor could make a phone call that would get an NPRM instigated straight away so Australia harmonised with the rest of the world – he doesn’t.
Mike Taylor knows that the radar is not used correctly in Australia. We have already lost six people at Benalla and no doubt the next incident will be an airline accident, probably at Proserpine with possibly 100 passengers dead. Mike Taylor knows all about this because I have told him. It is a fact that the ATSB did not make a recommendation to better use the radar when finalising the report on the six needless deaths at Benalla.
I challenge the many media people who read this site, to get an interview with Mike Taylor about these important issues that are the very basis of aviation safety in Australia. I wish you luck.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by landof4x
Hahaha - Radio Saigon makes me laugh.
Telling people off for having a go at Dick? Hahaha, he's a big boy, he can look after himself.
Telling people off for having a go at Dick? Hahaha, he's a big boy, he can look after himself.
I quite agree Dick needs no defence from me or anyone else. He is well capable of conducting his own. It strikes me there are many very vocal individuals here that are prepared to seemingly wage a war of vitriol against Dick for perceived past fouls... yet none of them offer viable solutions to the issues highlighted by Dick. Their posts are merely spleen-venting.
This industry is far from perfect, has been for many years... incumbents in the top regulatory role have come and gone, but only one cares sufficiently about the industry to raise concerns in this and other forae. That alone should tell you something about the man.
Do I know Dick? Yep, met him once at the fuel pumps in NZWF a few years ago when he was refuelling his C-208. I doubt very much that Dick remembers that. Do I care? Not even a little bit. As I said earlier, I do not support every issue that Dick espouses in relation our industry, but in this one I do believe he has the right of it. AND I'm sick of seeing his every utterance stomped on here by spineless twats that wouldn't have the guts to do what he does even if they could.
Originally Posted by landof4x
Have I done anything? No, I just fly a plane - nothing more nothing less. But at least I can admit it.
Bravo.
Thread Starter
Orangputi,
Sorry about the exam costs. Unfortunately the Government decided to bring in more cost recovery in relation to aviation, actually there was nothing I could do about that.
In relation to your claim, that I was “single focussed” in relation to pilots that is simply not true. My reforms have always been based on an objective criteria in relation to where best to spend the finite safety dollar. I have made as many changes in airworthiness issues as I have with issues in relation to pilots. For example I introduced the “first of type” acceptance from five leading aviation countries saving our industry millions of dollars. It meant that each individual aircraft does not have to go through a “first of type” acceptance here in Australia.
Of course, many people who are earning money from this type of work objected to that. I think it can be said that the changes I introduced had a chance of just about offending everyone in the industry. This is of course what happens when decisions are made using an objective scientific criteria.
Sorry about the exam costs. Unfortunately the Government decided to bring in more cost recovery in relation to aviation, actually there was nothing I could do about that.
In relation to your claim, that I was “single focussed” in relation to pilots that is simply not true. My reforms have always been based on an objective criteria in relation to where best to spend the finite safety dollar. I have made as many changes in airworthiness issues as I have with issues in relation to pilots. For example I introduced the “first of type” acceptance from five leading aviation countries saving our industry millions of dollars. It meant that each individual aircraft does not have to go through a “first of type” acceptance here in Australia.
Of course, many people who are earning money from this type of work objected to that. I think it can be said that the changes I introduced had a chance of just about offending everyone in the industry. This is of course what happens when decisions are made using an objective scientific criteria.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dick,
Thanks for your response. With respect to my previous comments about single pilot focus, I can only state that was the if I remember rightly the general opinion amongst my colleagues at the time in engineering.
Moving forward, CASA is in the worst shape than it has been for years and years and the lack of accountability is shameful, so yes why not ask these questions of the head string puller!
Being ex QF I am quite amazed how low the industry has sunk and how the regulators just sit back and let things occur. We are heading for a big one soon unless CASA start overseeing these operations a lot closer.
Thanks for your response. With respect to my previous comments about single pilot focus, I can only state that was the if I remember rightly the general opinion amongst my colleagues at the time in engineering.
Moving forward, CASA is in the worst shape than it has been for years and years and the lack of accountability is shameful, so yes why not ask these questions of the head string puller!
Being ex QF I am quite amazed how low the industry has sunk and how the regulators just sit back and let things occur. We are heading for a big one soon unless CASA start overseeing these operations a lot closer.
Evertonian
Following on from Orangputi's point, what would you do now Dick if you were running the show?
I have personally worked a few 22 & 24 hour shifts as a Load Controller & whilst I was well remunerated for it, I don't recall anyone suggesting there was anything wrong with it. I've also had my time in Crewing & know very well the hour limitations for Pilots & Seagulls but it seems that the Aviation regs are only interested in them. I presume the "lesser beings" of aviation are consigned to the annals of the local Worksafe conditions...
I have personally worked a few 22 & 24 hour shifts as a Load Controller & whilst I was well remunerated for it, I don't recall anyone suggesting there was anything wrong with it. I've also had my time in Crewing & know very well the hour limitations for Pilots & Seagulls but it seems that the Aviation regs are only interested in them. I presume the "lesser beings" of aviation are consigned to the annals of the local Worksafe conditions...
Thread Starter
Everyone, I have never complained on this site or anywhere else for being bashed as a tall poppy.
I understand why some people need to do this.
However the bashing should be accurate bashing- not inaccurate bashing.
What could be fairer.
And I reckon its better to be a tall poppy than a "never was at all' - to quote Slim Dusty.
I understand why some people need to do this.
However the bashing should be accurate bashing- not inaccurate bashing.
What could be fairer.
And I reckon its better to be a tall poppy than a "never was at all' - to quote Slim Dusty.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 24th Sep 2008 at 07:51.
Folks,
A few thoughts:
James Michael --- It does matter where a head of a Commonwealth department lives, the job is in Canberra, not Melbourne, and I will bet a plugged nickel that Mr. Taylor does not pay the cost of his commuting from Melbourne to Canberra --- our new Prime Minister has made much of moving into the Lodge, I am really quite surprised that Rudd tolerates the head of a major department being a commuter --- I wonder does he even know??
Mr. Taylor is immensely powerful, and all you posters here who support the independence of the ATSB ( a large % of respondents to the Miller report wanted ATSB to be independent of the "Department", wanted it to have the independence of the NTSB) should read the report and the submissions.
A major thrust of the terms of reference for Miller could be read as asking for a recommendation to reduce the independence of the ATSB, and increase the control of the Secretary, ie Mr. Taylor, on the totally (from and air safety perspective, but not from a Sir Humphrey) spurious grounds that the ATSB budget comes from "the Department", therefor ATSB should come under the virtually total control of the Secretary of "the Department."
I would think that the legislated independence of a relatively minor bureaucrat, the Director of ATSB, would really get up the nose of somebody like Mr. Taylor, to me that came through in the Miller proceedings.
Hands up all you aviation professionals who want to see the independence of ATSB circumscribed, and ATSB being forced to "share" accident investigations with CASA, particularly CASA compliance and enforcement. As Secretary of "the Department", Mr. Taylor must have been happy with that, he had to sign off on the legislation -- that the last Minister knocked back.
Did you all, or any of you, see the proposed amendments to the Transportation Safety Act, that would have effectively eliminated the ATSB right to hold information confidential --- ATSB would have had to "open the files" to CASA, on CASA demand.
Mr. Taylor was the head of "the Department" that put that legislation to the last Minister for Transport etc, but in this case the Minister's advisers understood the ramifications for air safety, the legislation was seriously amended, and the ICAO confidentiality SARPs were preserved in the legislative amendment.
Mr. Taylor should be a very public figure, because he has such a major role in air safety regulation, and air safety outcomes, and such a major role in the runaway costs being imposed in aviation ---- and is head of "the Department" that imposes "light handed" administration of airport regulation, allowing the price gouging and other airport disasters, that even airlines/AATA/BARA complain bitterly of!
Think what "the Department's" hands off (light handed) approach has permitted at Bankstown, Archerfield, Evans Head, Casino, to name just a few -- aviation activities come a poor last in priority, compared to "the developers", despite the airport Act and Regulations saying exactly the opposite --- this is what "light handed regulation really means --- ignoring what doesn't suit --- and legislation passed by "our" Parliament being ignored by "executive Government", to the very great benefit of powerful developers with no interest in aviation --- to the very great cost to all of the aviation sector.
The crazy airport security regulation (security lighting at Coconut Island ??), ASICs, the whole disaster --- but just look at the vast expansion of the bureaucrat to aeroplane ratio that has been achieved ----???
And in an era of cost recovery, we are paying directly for this mess.
In most countries that we would compare to Australia, GA has been doing relatively well in recent years---- except in Australia, where it is being driven into the ground --- and runaway bureaucracy has played a/the major role.
All very very sad.
Tootle pip !!
A few thoughts:
James Michael --- It does matter where a head of a Commonwealth department lives, the job is in Canberra, not Melbourne, and I will bet a plugged nickel that Mr. Taylor does not pay the cost of his commuting from Melbourne to Canberra --- our new Prime Minister has made much of moving into the Lodge, I am really quite surprised that Rudd tolerates the head of a major department being a commuter --- I wonder does he even know??
Mr. Taylor is immensely powerful, and all you posters here who support the independence of the ATSB ( a large % of respondents to the Miller report wanted ATSB to be independent of the "Department", wanted it to have the independence of the NTSB) should read the report and the submissions.
A major thrust of the terms of reference for Miller could be read as asking for a recommendation to reduce the independence of the ATSB, and increase the control of the Secretary, ie Mr. Taylor, on the totally (from and air safety perspective, but not from a Sir Humphrey) spurious grounds that the ATSB budget comes from "the Department", therefor ATSB should come under the virtually total control of the Secretary of "the Department."
I would think that the legislated independence of a relatively minor bureaucrat, the Director of ATSB, would really get up the nose of somebody like Mr. Taylor, to me that came through in the Miller proceedings.
Hands up all you aviation professionals who want to see the independence of ATSB circumscribed, and ATSB being forced to "share" accident investigations with CASA, particularly CASA compliance and enforcement. As Secretary of "the Department", Mr. Taylor must have been happy with that, he had to sign off on the legislation -- that the last Minister knocked back.
Did you all, or any of you, see the proposed amendments to the Transportation Safety Act, that would have effectively eliminated the ATSB right to hold information confidential --- ATSB would have had to "open the files" to CASA, on CASA demand.
Mr. Taylor was the head of "the Department" that put that legislation to the last Minister for Transport etc, but in this case the Minister's advisers understood the ramifications for air safety, the legislation was seriously amended, and the ICAO confidentiality SARPs were preserved in the legislative amendment.
Mr. Taylor should be a very public figure, because he has such a major role in air safety regulation, and air safety outcomes, and such a major role in the runaway costs being imposed in aviation ---- and is head of "the Department" that imposes "light handed" administration of airport regulation, allowing the price gouging and other airport disasters, that even airlines/AATA/BARA complain bitterly of!
Think what "the Department's" hands off (light handed) approach has permitted at Bankstown, Archerfield, Evans Head, Casino, to name just a few -- aviation activities come a poor last in priority, compared to "the developers", despite the airport Act and Regulations saying exactly the opposite --- this is what "light handed regulation really means --- ignoring what doesn't suit --- and legislation passed by "our" Parliament being ignored by "executive Government", to the very great benefit of powerful developers with no interest in aviation --- to the very great cost to all of the aviation sector.
The crazy airport security regulation (security lighting at Coconut Island ??), ASICs, the whole disaster --- but just look at the vast expansion of the bureaucrat to aeroplane ratio that has been achieved ----???
And in an era of cost recovery, we are paying directly for this mess.
In most countries that we would compare to Australia, GA has been doing relatively well in recent years---- except in Australia, where it is being driven into the ground --- and runaway bureaucracy has played a/the major role.
All very very sad.
Tootle pip !!
Thread Starter
Mike Taylor is clearly responsible for what is happening – and more to the point, what is not happening at Avalon airport. After all Mike Taylor is responsible for Airservices Australia and for CASA and he knows, just as anyone who is involved in aviation knows, that 1.5 million passenger movements without any form of local air traffic control is exceedingly risky. Just why he would be allowing this to go on is almost beyond imagination.
I understand Airservices want to put in a Class D tower at Avalon, similar to the type of towers they are operating in the United States. Of course, we all know Qantas doesn’t want to pay the 30 cents per passenger that it’s fully owned subsidiary Jetstar would have to charge for the tower to manned. Isn’t it amazing the power that Qantas has over the Department? Do we wait for the inevitable accident before this tower is manned?
I point out again that there is no other place in the world that I know of that has such a high number of passenger movements without a local air traffic control tower. The US criteria for a terminal radar facility comes in at 250,000 passenger enplanements i.e. 500,000 passenger movements. The irresponsibility is staggering. We must make sure that we hold the people responsible for this outrageous conduct accountable.
I understand Airservices want to put in a Class D tower at Avalon, similar to the type of towers they are operating in the United States. Of course, we all know Qantas doesn’t want to pay the 30 cents per passenger that it’s fully owned subsidiary Jetstar would have to charge for the tower to manned. Isn’t it amazing the power that Qantas has over the Department? Do we wait for the inevitable accident before this tower is manned?
I point out again that there is no other place in the world that I know of that has such a high number of passenger movements without a local air traffic control tower. The US criteria for a terminal radar facility comes in at 250,000 passenger enplanements i.e. 500,000 passenger movements. The irresponsibility is staggering. We must make sure that we hold the people responsible for this outrageous conduct accountable.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 25th Sep 2008 at 04:55.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
What's our fallback if Mike Taylor does not join us on this thread?
Avalon - who owns the airport and are they prepared to pay for the tower or is it solely an Airservices matter?
Your USA trigger supports Class C, not Class D, I believe?
What's our fallback if Mike Taylor does not join us on this thread?
Avalon - who owns the airport and are they prepared to pay for the tower or is it solely an Airservices matter?
Your USA trigger supports Class C, not Class D, I believe?
Point 1:
I'm not too confident of timely and appropriate legislation coming out of "the Department", when Mr Taylor lauds thus:
" ... we have recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the NSW government to explore a wide range of options ... "
Yes, Sir Humphrey !
Point 2:
I don't think ASA has enough staff to man a fairy floss stand, let alone a new Tower at Avalon ... or anywhere else for that matter !
I'm not too confident of timely and appropriate legislation coming out of "the Department", when Mr Taylor lauds thus:
" ... we have recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the NSW government to explore a wide range of options ... "
Yes, Sir Humphrey !
Point 2:
I don't think ASA has enough staff to man a fairy floss stand, let alone a new Tower at Avalon ... or anywhere else for that matter !
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
who thought this little Gem up then?
peuce;
This announcement makes me wonder at the logic of creating more jobs if there isn't the staff to fulfil them. As someone has already commented, why Olympic Dam???
Miscellaneous Legislative Instruments CASA EX40/08 and CASA EX65/08
The following instruments were registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments on 22 September 2008: CASA EX40/08 and CASA EX65/08. Instrument CASA EX40/08 applies to the provision of a UNICOM service by Airservices Australia (AA) at Dubbo, Hervey Bay, Olympic Dam, Port Macquarie and Wagga Wagga Aerodromes. It exempts AA from compliance with subregulation 139.385 (2) and regulation 139.395 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 in respect of paragraph 14.4.1.3 of Part 139 of the Manual of Standards. It came into effect on 23 September 2008. Instrument CASA EX65/08 allows properly qualified and eligible Airservices Australia air traffic controllers at peak times of the year to perform air traffic control functions for up to 21 days without holding the relevant licence or rating for the function, pending its issue by CASA. It comes into effect on 1 October 2008.
This and other instruments are available on the CASA website:
Legislative instruments and exemptions – Miscellaneous Legislative Instruments
This announcement makes me wonder at the logic of creating more jobs if there isn't the staff to fulfil them. As someone has already commented, why Olympic Dam???
Miscellaneous Legislative Instruments CASA EX40/08 and CASA EX65/08
The following instruments were registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments on 22 September 2008: CASA EX40/08 and CASA EX65/08. Instrument CASA EX40/08 applies to the provision of a UNICOM service by Airservices Australia (AA) at Dubbo, Hervey Bay, Olympic Dam, Port Macquarie and Wagga Wagga Aerodromes. It exempts AA from compliance with subregulation 139.385 (2) and regulation 139.395 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 in respect of paragraph 14.4.1.3 of Part 139 of the Manual of Standards. It came into effect on 23 September 2008. Instrument CASA EX65/08 allows properly qualified and eligible Airservices Australia air traffic controllers at peak times of the year to perform air traffic control functions for up to 21 days without holding the relevant licence or rating for the function, pending its issue by CASA. It comes into effect on 1 October 2008.
This and other instruments are available on the CASA website:
Legislative instruments and exemptions – Miscellaneous Legislative Instruments
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canberra
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't be serious!
What, 1.5 million passengers and no air traffic services! You can't be serious!
This is like having one of the busiest road intersections in Australia without a round about or traffic lights. With big trucks mixing it with mum, dad and the kids in cars.
Shame on QANTAS for refusing to charge 30 cents per passenger to recover the measly cost of air traffic management. Do the passengers know that QANTAS values the risk to their lives at less than 30 cents? Has anybody asked the passengers if they would be willing to fork out another 30 cents for the protection managed air traffic can give?
If you look at the maps, the air traffic management is a complete crock. At present, traffic passing across the airspace is channeled out to sea (too bad if an engine fails like the Williamtown accident) or directly through the ILS approaches - how safe and sensible is that?
For a small investment in safety, some traffic sensors and some sensible traffic management, with perhaps a change of airspace to something like E or D, matters could be greatly improved. The safest place is directly over an airfield, so if transit traffic tracks via the Avalon aids over the top, safety would be much improved.
And when it gets really busy, let's have a professional traffic manager or two in the Tower. Even it it costs 60 cents a passenger.
This is like having one of the busiest road intersections in Australia without a round about or traffic lights. With big trucks mixing it with mum, dad and the kids in cars.
Shame on QANTAS for refusing to charge 30 cents per passenger to recover the measly cost of air traffic management. Do the passengers know that QANTAS values the risk to their lives at less than 30 cents? Has anybody asked the passengers if they would be willing to fork out another 30 cents for the protection managed air traffic can give?
If you look at the maps, the air traffic management is a complete crock. At present, traffic passing across the airspace is channeled out to sea (too bad if an engine fails like the Williamtown accident) or directly through the ILS approaches - how safe and sensible is that?
For a small investment in safety, some traffic sensors and some sensible traffic management, with perhaps a change of airspace to something like E or D, matters could be greatly improved. The safest place is directly over an airfield, so if transit traffic tracks via the Avalon aids over the top, safety would be much improved.
And when it gets really busy, let's have a professional traffic manager or two in the Tower. Even it it costs 60 cents a passenger.
Thread Starter
The US figure is only a trigger to do the appropriate study.
In the USA the equivalent airspace would be class D and thats what AA want here
However CASA can't move on from the 1950's so thats why they are saying class C.
Of course Mike Taylor could fix the impass in a minute- He is clearly the person responsible because he well knows CASA won't make any decision which offends Qantas.
And it's not about who is prepared to pay for the manning of the tower-it's about what is necessary for safety.
In the USA the equivalent airspace would be class D and thats what AA want here
However CASA can't move on from the 1950's so thats why they are saying class C.
Of course Mike Taylor could fix the impass in a minute- He is clearly the person responsible because he well knows CASA won't make any decision which offends Qantas.
And it's not about who is prepared to pay for the manning of the tower-it's about what is necessary for safety.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did not say 'manning', what I asked was - Avalon - who owns the airport and are they prepared to pay for the tower or is it solely an Airservices matter?
Are there not costs involved in setting up the tower - quite independent of the ATC staffing?
The USA figure is only a trigger? Where does what follows say 'trigger'? Avalon looks more like C than D to me (nice rhyme
)
3-2-4. Class C Airspace
a. Definition. Generally, that airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation (charted in MSL) surrounding those airports that have an operational control tower, are serviced by a radar approach control, and that have a certain number of IFR operations or passenger enplanements. Although the configuration of each Class C airspace area is individually tailored, the airspace usually consists of a 5 NM radius core surface area that extends from the surface up to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation, and a 10 NM radius shelf area that extends no lower than 1,200 feet up to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation.
FAA ORDER JO 7400.2G EFFECTIVE APRIL 10 2008 STATES: -
Section 2. Class C Airspace Standards
16-2-1. CRITERIA
a. The criteria for considering a given airport as a candidate for Class C designation must be based on factors which include the volume of aircraft or number of enplaned passengers, the traffic density, and the type or nature of operations being conducted.
b. For a site to be considered as a candidate for Class C airspace designation, it must meet the following criteria:
1. The airport must be serviced by an operational airport traffic control tower and a radar approach control; and
2. One of the following applies:
(a) An annual instrument operations count of 75,000 at the primary airport.
(b) An annual instrument operations count of 100,000 at the primary and secondary airports in the terminal area hub.
(c) An annual count of 250,000 enplaned passengers at the primary airport.
Dick, it is happening again - another thread drifting to your NAS. How about establishing that sticky NAS thread I suggested ("All the way with LBJ") and debating the NAS there to stop this constant thread drift to your passion.
It's OK for you, no smackies, but those of us who are unprotected species are reluctant to be penalised for thread drift and the drift warning has already been sounded earlier. The thread needs to be tailored to Taylor
Are there not costs involved in setting up the tower - quite independent of the ATC staffing?
The USA figure is only a trigger? Where does what follows say 'trigger'? Avalon looks more like C than D to me (nice rhyme
)3-2-4. Class C Airspace
a. Definition. Generally, that airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation (charted in MSL) surrounding those airports that have an operational control tower, are serviced by a radar approach control, and that have a certain number of IFR operations or passenger enplanements. Although the configuration of each Class C airspace area is individually tailored, the airspace usually consists of a 5 NM radius core surface area that extends from the surface up to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation, and a 10 NM radius shelf area that extends no lower than 1,200 feet up to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation.
FAA ORDER JO 7400.2G EFFECTIVE APRIL 10 2008 STATES: -
Section 2. Class C Airspace Standards
16-2-1. CRITERIA
a. The criteria for considering a given airport as a candidate for Class C designation must be based on factors which include the volume of aircraft or number of enplaned passengers, the traffic density, and the type or nature of operations being conducted.
b. For a site to be considered as a candidate for Class C airspace designation, it must meet the following criteria:
1. The airport must be serviced by an operational airport traffic control tower and a radar approach control; and
2. One of the following applies:
(a) An annual instrument operations count of 75,000 at the primary airport.
(b) An annual instrument operations count of 100,000 at the primary and secondary airports in the terminal area hub.
(c) An annual count of 250,000 enplaned passengers at the primary airport.
Dick, it is happening again - another thread drifting to your NAS. How about establishing that sticky NAS thread I suggested ("All the way with LBJ") and debating the NAS there to stop this constant thread drift to your passion.
It's OK for you, no smackies, but those of us who are unprotected species are reluctant to be penalised for thread drift and the drift warning has already been sounded earlier. The thread needs to be tailored to Taylor
Thread Starter
James, Once again your views are exactly the same as those of Brian Hannan , the AOPA committee member who is against manning the tower at Avalon because he believes it will delay AOPA members.
My attitude is simple- if the safety criteria is met the tower should be manned even if AOPA members are delayed.
If the tower airspace is class D as it would be for similar airspace in the USA there will be no measurable delays.
Under NAS class C requires a local terminal radar unit- not one 30 miles away as it is at Avalon.
My attitude is simple- if the safety criteria is met the tower should be manned even if AOPA members are delayed.
If the tower airspace is class D as it would be for similar airspace in the USA there will be no measurable delays.
Under NAS class C requires a local terminal radar unit- not one 30 miles away as it is at Avalon.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
Well that's certainly not my view - delaying members of an organisation is not an acceptable reason in its own right for not having Class C airspace. Any more than I would expect you to push for personal privileges like straight in approaches outside NAS guidelines to Gundaroo, or privileged clearances through Williamtown
My personal view is that the CASA OAR study was a crock and I know that view is shared elsewhere by people with much more experience than I. It was got up to give the answer you prodded the Minister for.
But, in somehow deducing what are my views - and I'm uncertain how you deduced that from what I posted except that you wanted to have a dip at some individual in some organisation as is your habit - you have again missed answering my question:
To put it another way - is Mike Taylor in a position to direct Lindsay Fox to put several million dollars into setting up a working tower at Avalon? If not, then this thread has again diverted to your Nasdebation as anticipated.
Well that's certainly not my view - delaying members of an organisation is not an acceptable reason in its own right for not having Class C airspace. Any more than I would expect you to push for personal privileges like straight in approaches outside NAS guidelines to Gundaroo, or privileged clearances through Williamtown
My personal view is that the CASA OAR study was a crock and I know that view is shared elsewhere by people with much more experience than I. It was got up to give the answer you prodded the Minister for.
But, in somehow deducing what are my views - and I'm uncertain how you deduced that from what I posted except that you wanted to have a dip at some individual in some organisation as is your habit - you have again missed answering my question:
Avalon - who owns the airport and are they prepared to pay for the tower or is it solely an Airservices matter?