CASA's revised GAAP procedures.
Sounds like the Yeend who was involved in Flight Standards in the old Department.
Read "Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom" to get a background on his abilities and results.
He predicted (among other things) that the savings gained by removing full position reporting for VFR and removing the AFIZ's would come at a great cost to safety.
Eighteen years later it is clear that he was wrong- safety has improved.
I am proud to be criticised by such a cargo cultist!
Imagine the state of our industry now if the $100 million PA had not been saved- $1.8 Billion of extra costs would have caused even more damage- if that was possible!
The Edwards thesis is inaccurate rubbish - it clearly shows how bad our institutes of learning are these days. For instance the industry did not "clamour" for the user pays CAA to be set up. Just the opposite.
I will ask again - why has the OAR directed AsA to move to class D- especially if it is going to have the consequences that you and others describe?
Love to hear your conspiracy theories!
Read "Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom" to get a background on his abilities and results.
He predicted (among other things) that the savings gained by removing full position reporting for VFR and removing the AFIZ's would come at a great cost to safety.
Eighteen years later it is clear that he was wrong- safety has improved.
I am proud to be criticised by such a cargo cultist!
Imagine the state of our industry now if the $100 million PA had not been saved- $1.8 Billion of extra costs would have caused even more damage- if that was possible!
The Edwards thesis is inaccurate rubbish - it clearly shows how bad our institutes of learning are these days. For instance the industry did not "clamour" for the user pays CAA to be set up. Just the opposite.
I will ask again - why has the OAR directed AsA to move to class D- especially if it is going to have the consequences that you and others describe?
Love to hear your conspiracy theories!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AH Dick, The entrenched ex RAAF fly boys of the 1960/1970 era in the bureacracy now set the standard, (a) They don't like light aircraft , period and (b) they absolutely believe in sterile controlled airspace no matter what the risk assesment is or how much it might cost.
There is not a commercial bone in their bodies and they really don't care if the flying schools grind to a halt.
The notion that holding early low time pilots OCTA in the concentrated space adjacent to designated GAAP airports is safe defies logic, and to be then assured after clearance is granted to the GAAP that they are mystically separated is fallacy.
There is not a commercial bone in their bodies and they really don't care if the flying schools grind to a halt.
The notion that holding early low time pilots OCTA in the concentrated space adjacent to designated GAAP airports is safe defies logic, and to be then assured after clearance is granted to the GAAP that they are mystically separated is fallacy.
Coral ,I really don't know. I hope that it is part of the NAS- so that all of our non radar towers will have harmonised simple procedures.
Of course if it is to go to ICAO D with no differences filed our GAAP airports are doomed.
Now the people in the CASA OAR would know this so it is interesting they make no clarification.
The OAR won't even answer my letters so it's unlikely they will tell me what their real intentions are.
My suggestion is that someone phones them and puts the answer here.
Surely it can't be a national secret.
Of course if it is to go to ICAO D with no differences filed our GAAP airports are doomed.
Now the people in the CASA OAR would know this so it is interesting they make no clarification.
The OAR won't even answer my letters so it's unlikely they will tell me what their real intentions are.
My suggestion is that someone phones them and puts the answer here.
Surely it can't be a national secret.
Moderator
So..you want the flying schools to be doomed, because if they are going to file differences then it won't be proper Class D will it? In fact, it may as well be..well..GAAP! I'm confused!
Dick the resistance to change that you criticise, and I agree is often unfounded, is inevitable when the people at the coal face are not consulted, rather they are insulted by being considered so unimportant as to not be worth seeking an opinion from.
Maybe we do want change, and could come up with something even better, if only we were asked. We'd probably be able to save lives and small business too.
You haven't answered my q yet, about how you could save costs with the retail analogy of 40% of your trading hours and floor space taken away. You're a clever guy, perhaps you can tell me how I can do it and stay solvent let alone save costs?
Dick the resistance to change that you criticise, and I agree is often unfounded, is inevitable when the people at the coal face are not consulted, rather they are insulted by being considered so unimportant as to not be worth seeking an opinion from.
Maybe we do want change, and could come up with something even better, if only we were asked. We'd probably be able to save lives and small business too.
You haven't answered my q yet, about how you could save costs with the retail analogy of 40% of your trading hours and floor space taken away. You're a clever guy, perhaps you can tell me how I can do it and stay solvent let alone save costs?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith, 28th August 2009, 13:15 Ambidji Report thread
- you allege that CTA and radar as used today would not save lives (where are the IFR in surveillance covered airspace accident records?)
- you allege that your removal of OCTA Flight Services has not cost lives, resistance to proper procedures or airspace is!
2 days later on the 30th of August 2009, 23:59 CASA Revised GAAP procedures thread
- you allege that by your removing of OCTA Flight Service and related procedures that safety has improved!
Which is it? is the current OCTA system safer, not safer, cheaper, more expensive? Then you say we should pay for the huge additional expense asociated with ATC surveillance services where safe and efficient Flight Service use to be before you binned it?
Removing OCTA services and replacing them with the system we have today (ATC CTA combined with OCTA services) was presumably a known outcome of your OCTA changes. If those changes back then (which is basically the system today) were not safe (as you alledge just 2 days prior to saying OCTA safety has improved), why did you allow the change in the first place?
It is one or the other Mr Smith!
if the Benalla accident had happened at a similar airport where the radar went to ground level they would have still all died.
That's because there has been constant resistance to putting in proper procedures or airspace after the FSO's were removed.
How many more will have to die before modern proven overseas practices are introduced?
That's because there has been constant resistance to putting in proper procedures or airspace after the FSO's were removed.
How many more will have to die before modern proven overseas practices are introduced?
- you allege that your removal of OCTA Flight Services has not cost lives, resistance to proper procedures or airspace is!
2 days later on the 30th of August 2009, 23:59 CASA Revised GAAP procedures thread
He predicted (among other things) that the savings gained by removing full position reporting for VFR and removing the AFIZ's would come at a great cost to safety.
Eighteen years later it is clear that he was wrong- safety has improved.
Eighteen years later it is clear that he was wrong- safety has improved.
Which is it? is the current OCTA system safer, not safer, cheaper, more expensive? Then you say we should pay for the huge additional expense asociated with ATC surveillance services where safe and efficient Flight Service use to be before you binned it?
Removing OCTA services and replacing them with the system we have today (ATC CTA combined with OCTA services) was presumably a known outcome of your OCTA changes. If those changes back then (which is basically the system today) were not safe (as you alledge just 2 days prior to saying OCTA safety has improved), why did you allow the change in the first place?
It is one or the other Mr Smith!
Last edited by ARFOR; 31st Aug 2009 at 07:52.
CFI,
You'r not dumb, I know that from first hand experience, so please re-read what Dick is having to say about FAA D, with a (in my opinion) minor difference, the GAAPs are already FAA D. Dick is not advocating a system where you have your ability to conduct your business reduced by 40%.
If you haven't already, have a look at the Ambidjii take on the history of GAAP, which superseded the old "Secondary Airport Procedures".
We all know that ICAO D will be disaster for the GAAPs, it will be a lot mote than 40% reductions, particularly at Jandakot and Bankstown, and would have been at Archerfield, if the airport company hadn't already almost killed off training.
Where is the united national outcry ????
Maybe you can resurrect "Gaunty".
Tootle pip!!!
You'r not dumb, I know that from first hand experience, so please re-read what Dick is having to say about FAA D, with a (in my opinion) minor difference, the GAAPs are already FAA D. Dick is not advocating a system where you have your ability to conduct your business reduced by 40%.
If you haven't already, have a look at the Ambidjii take on the history of GAAP, which superseded the old "Secondary Airport Procedures".
We all know that ICAO D will be disaster for the GAAPs, it will be a lot mote than 40% reductions, particularly at Jandakot and Bankstown, and would have been at Archerfield, if the airport company hadn't already almost killed off training.
Where is the united national outcry ????
Maybe you can resurrect "Gaunty".
Tootle pip!!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 31st Aug 2009 at 11:52.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviator Magazine
The September issue of the above magazine will be hitting the stands any day now.
There is a four page article on the problems being faced by all at Archerfield Airport.
One example of the issues not commonly known involving ASA is that a deal was done with the ALC where aircraft owners are unable to take advantage of the General Aviation Exemption. All landing fees at YBAF are invoiced by the ALC and the minimum fee is $25.50! ASA have also seen fit to reduce the 28R runway TODA by 400m as the ALC have built new buildings inside the OLS!
All these and many more issues involving CASA, ASA, OAR and ATSB are falling on deaf ears and clearly show no one is interested in doing their job.
What can be done?
Well it requires a unified voice from all aviation particpants at all levels of Government then litigation to realy get their attention.
You can not rely on Mr Dick Smith to do anything.
There is a four page article on the problems being faced by all at Archerfield Airport.
One example of the issues not commonly known involving ASA is that a deal was done with the ALC where aircraft owners are unable to take advantage of the General Aviation Exemption. All landing fees at YBAF are invoiced by the ALC and the minimum fee is $25.50! ASA have also seen fit to reduce the 28R runway TODA by 400m as the ALC have built new buildings inside the OLS!
All these and many more issues involving CASA, ASA, OAR and ATSB are falling on deaf ears and clearly show no one is interested in doing their job.
What can be done?
Well it requires a unified voice from all aviation particpants at all levels of Government then litigation to realy get their attention.
You can not rely on Mr Dick Smith to do anything.
ARFOR, your post is far too complex for me to understand let alone give an accurate answer to !
The fact that you are not game to put your real name on your post or even phone me shows that you do not have a genuine belief about saving human lives.
Remember there is no pprune rule which stops genuine people from posting their honestly held beliefs under their real names.
I do feel sorry for you - to frightened to be honestly open about an issue as important as public safety.
Never will I believe for a second that your own self interest to protect yourself from some real or imagined threat is more important than lives that can be saved if you had the guts not to hide behind a false name.
For I strongly believe that nothing involved with aviation safety should ever be secret or put behind self interest.
The fact that you are not game to put your real name on your post or even phone me shows that you do not have a genuine belief about saving human lives.
Remember there is no pprune rule which stops genuine people from posting their honestly held beliefs under their real names.
I do feel sorry for you - to frightened to be honestly open about an issue as important as public safety.
Never will I believe for a second that your own self interest to protect yourself from some real or imagined threat is more important than lives that can be saved if you had the guts not to hide behind a false name.
For I strongly believe that nothing involved with aviation safety should ever be secret or put behind self interest.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, Mr Smith,
The object of these forums is a free exchange of views without the personalities baggage. That you decide to use your marketing label in preference to anonymity is understandable!
A noble sentiment, such that you would in that case be prepared to share with us your meetings with, and lobbying for certain agenda's, in the interests of aviation safety, open and transparent unsecretness and non-self interest of course! 
The object of these forums is a free exchange of views without the personalities baggage. That you decide to use your marketing label in preference to anonymity is understandable!
I strongly believe that nothing involved with aviation safety should ever be secret or put behind self interest.
Grosser, ASA doesn't have control over what an aerodrome operator does with their real estate - the operator could probably close a runway if they felt the financial urge. TODA does have to provide obstacle clearance, bit pointless otherwise
ARFOR, phone me any time- from a public phone if you want- and I'll answer any question you want.
Or better still do it as a taped interview and whack in on the web. I had A Current Affair in today, believe it or not they don't give me the questions beforehand.
I don't have time to post every answer on this site as I only type with two fingers and Marilyn has gone to Queensland to live.
And we sure don't want the "baggage of personalities" That's just a stupid part of our democratic system. Far better to have important public safety decisions made by unamed and un-accountable bureaucrats like you!
Or better still do it as a taped interview and whack in on the web. I had A Current Affair in today, believe it or not they don't give me the questions beforehand.
I don't have time to post every answer on this site as I only type with two fingers and Marilyn has gone to Queensland to live.
And we sure don't want the "baggage of personalities" That's just a stupid part of our democratic system. Far better to have important public safety decisions made by unamed and un-accountable bureaucrats like you!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had my lovely first experience with the new regulations last week.
Waiting for a CTA departure in the run-up bay I received the call to taxi to the holding point "without delay". Hoping to get a speedy departure after hanging out in the bay for 5 minutes I moved off only to be promptly cut off by another aircraft who started to taxi out of the bay just after I'd received the call to the holding point (which is another matter all together about airmenship and people listening out on ground).
I ended up waiting at the holding point for 15 minutes. At times even though there was nobody on base or final but I wasn't being allowed to move because of what I assume to be congestion in the zone. I was sitting there listening to every man and his dog reporting in from PSP and TWRN. At one stage the tower had enough of a gap in transmission to apologise and remind me that I hadn't been forgotten. This wouldn't have been so much of a problem except that I had to stop the plugs from fouling up (more of an issue related to idiotic company regulations that an aircraft SHOULDN'T have the mixture leaned under any conditions).... after 5 minutes there was a noticable RPM drop more than what I was experiencing when I was doing the run-ups. I ended up sitting at the holding point with very sore legs from holding onto the brakes because I had to keep the RPM up. Never before have I run through the EFATO brief in my head so many times before take-off.
Engine problems from holding on the ground can only get worse in summer if this is going to be par for the course. What is going to happen to aircraft that are sitting around waiting in 40 degree heat? What about the meat bag flying the thing sitting in the hot box swealtering in an airless environment under the open sun?
Waiting for a CTA departure in the run-up bay I received the call to taxi to the holding point "without delay". Hoping to get a speedy departure after hanging out in the bay for 5 minutes I moved off only to be promptly cut off by another aircraft who started to taxi out of the bay just after I'd received the call to the holding point (which is another matter all together about airmenship and people listening out on ground).
I ended up waiting at the holding point for 15 minutes. At times even though there was nobody on base or final but I wasn't being allowed to move because of what I assume to be congestion in the zone. I was sitting there listening to every man and his dog reporting in from PSP and TWRN. At one stage the tower had enough of a gap in transmission to apologise and remind me that I hadn't been forgotten. This wouldn't have been so much of a problem except that I had to stop the plugs from fouling up (more of an issue related to idiotic company regulations that an aircraft SHOULDN'T have the mixture leaned under any conditions).... after 5 minutes there was a noticable RPM drop more than what I was experiencing when I was doing the run-ups. I ended up sitting at the holding point with very sore legs from holding onto the brakes because I had to keep the RPM up. Never before have I run through the EFATO brief in my head so many times before take-off.
Engine problems from holding on the ground can only get worse in summer if this is going to be par for the course. What is going to happen to aircraft that are sitting around waiting in 40 degree heat? What about the meat bag flying the thing sitting in the hot box swealtering in an airless environment under the open sun?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you were waiting for a CTA departure, then the delay at the holding point sounds like it would have been a "departure instruction" (ie H....) issue. Had this a few times over my life time. The issue is getting us separtated from the Class C guys over the top that are not on frequency. It's not the tower guys.
.....Yes, we still need to be mixed in with the new "CASA 6 in the circuit" regulation but this sounds more like the reason from what you have typed.
.....Yes, we still need to be mixed in with the new "CASA 6 in the circuit" regulation but this sounds more like the reason from what you have typed.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you were waiting for a CTA departure, then the delay at the holding point sounds like it would have been a "departure instruction" (ie H....) issue. Had this a few times over my life time. The issue is getting us separtated from the Class C guys over the top that are not on frequency. It's not the tower guys.
.....Yes, we still need to be mixed in with the new "CASA 6 in the circuit" regulation but this sounds more like the reason from what you have typed.
.....Yes, we still need to be mixed in with the new "CASA 6 in the circuit" regulation but this sounds more like the reason from what you have typed.
Etrust, there is no rule mandating anonymity.
I reckon if you are going to cast dispersions about a person by name on this site you should have the strength of character to post under your own name.
And for those who want to know if it is really me I suggest you pluck up some courage and phone me on 0408640221 and check!
I reckon if you are going to cast dispersions about a person by name on this site you should have the strength of character to post under your own name.
And for those who want to know if it is really me I suggest you pluck up some courage and phone me on 0408640221 and check!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 1st Sep 2009 at 02:58.