Merged: The Ambidji Report – CASA should get their money back!
Jabawocky,
Arr, yes, I had a similar incident a few years ago. Was in the circuit, on downwind, in a 146 in the twilight when up popped a TCAS return. I said to the effo "here comes #$%^& Dick Smith". Sure enough, shortly thereafter, "Descend! descend!" mused TCAS Betty. Soon after the good push to comply with the RA, the GPWS bleated "Terrain, Terrain!". I was not impressed.
Fortunately, it was in the SIM.
Check this out...What do you reckon Bloggs?
"Close call" in the skies above Northern Utah - ABC 4.com - Salt Lake City, Utah News
I have been there........ if at 10,000 feet your TCAS says Descend descend...... makes you glad if it was VMC, because in IMC you would really not want to. It would be a fight between the TCAS and the EGPWS saying CLIMB CLIMB
If anyone knows those hills you will know exactly what I mean.
"Close call" in the skies above Northern Utah - ABC 4.com - Salt Lake City, Utah News
I have been there........ if at 10,000 feet your TCAS says Descend descend...... makes you glad if it was VMC, because in IMC you would really not want to. It would be a fight between the TCAS and the EGPWS saying CLIMB CLIMB
If anyone knows those hills you will know exactly what I mean.
Fortunately, it was in the SIM.
Thread Starter
Clinton, you are quite naive when it comes to what happens in real life
I quite often find legal people are like this.
Surely you support the advantages of the US airspace system, or have you changed your mind?
Give me a phone call if you want more info on how I believe BK should operate- you can then put it on this site if you want to. I couldn't be bothered as they may do something quite different to ensure it does not work!
I quite often find legal people are like this.
Surely you support the advantages of the US airspace system, or have you changed your mind?
Give me a phone call if you want more info on how I believe BK should operate- you can then put it on this site if you want to. I couldn't be bothered as they may do something quite different to ensure it does not work!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 4th Sep 2009 at 04:02.
you a quite naive when it comes to what happens in real life
Alphabet airspace looks good on paper. Practically, it's a different story...
Thread Starter
I have never believed or claimed that any overseas system can be imported without any disadvantages.
I believe we should copy the best parts so we are more successful.
And nothing in life has all advantages- I have always looked for systems that can be copied that , on balance, have more advantages than disadvantages.
Look at the NAS document as approved by Federal Cabinet- it astutely takes what will work here and does not take items which are a disadvantage.
For example it doesn't suggest, even as an endstate model, that all IFR approaches must be in a minimum of class E.
And Clinton many people would agree with my statement about "legal people"
I am happy to accept you do not have this attribute! Please accept my humble apology!
I believe we should copy the best parts so we are more successful.
And nothing in life has all advantages- I have always looked for systems that can be copied that , on balance, have more advantages than disadvantages.
Look at the NAS document as approved by Federal Cabinet- it astutely takes what will work here and does not take items which are a disadvantage.
For example it doesn't suggest, even as an endstate model, that all IFR approaches must be in a minimum of class E.
And Clinton many people would agree with my statement about "legal people"
I am happy to accept you do not have this attribute! Please accept my humble apology!
Moderator
Perhaps if everyone focused their energy on the issues rather than labeling and denigrating people with whom they disagree, Australian aviation would be better off. Far better off.
Well said C.M
Dick, you said:
The White Australia Policy was, I assume, approved by a Federal Cabinet also ... but times change, priorities change or new information comes to light and we often move on.
Dick, you said:
Look at the NAS document as approved by Federal Cabinet ....
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peuce, Whilst I sopport open debate your transit to policies that were redemmed in the past is somewhat scary in its implicationn that we ar now an uncaring lot.
White Australia policy. a policy of the times 50's and 60's, Maybe something we will not be proud of in the times my grandchildren grow up in !!!
White Australia policy. a policy of the times 50's and 60's, Maybe something we will not be proud of in the times my grandchildren grow up in !!!
Thread Starter
Another Major Error in the Ambidji GAAP Report
I have started a new thread on this because it’s so important.
It has recently been pointed out that Figure 11.4 on Page 140 of the Ambidji Report (see link here) has been published with a fundamental error. This error is so fundamental, that when used in the calculations (which Ambidji have) it purports to show that the accident rates at US Class D towers are actually less than half what they really are. It then falsely shows that our GAAP airports are riskier than they really are when compared to the USA.
Let me explain.
Figure 11.4 on the vertical graph says “Collisions per Million Movements”. In fact, a major error has been made. This vertical axis should read “Collisions per Year”. Of course it wouldn’t be so serious if just the graph nomenclature was wrong. However, this is not the case. This error has been used in the Ambidji Report to come up with the “intolerable risk” statement.
With Ambidji believing the graph is the “Collisions per Million Movements” when the graph actually shows “Collisions per Year”, no wonder we ended up with such a grossly wrong outcome.
The error in the graph and the subsequent calculations show that by comparison with the USA, our GAAP airports are far less safe compared with the USA than reality.
See if someone has the guts to come on this site and admit to this error. See if Ambidji are prepared to issue a correction. Surely any professional firm should do so. Especially considering the damaging effect that the erroneous information has already had on our industry.
Ambidji – you are free to post. How about coming clean and telling us how this gross error has occurred, and how you intend rectifying it.
It has recently been pointed out that Figure 11.4 on Page 140 of the Ambidji Report (see link here) has been published with a fundamental error. This error is so fundamental, that when used in the calculations (which Ambidji have) it purports to show that the accident rates at US Class D towers are actually less than half what they really are. It then falsely shows that our GAAP airports are riskier than they really are when compared to the USA.
Let me explain.
Figure 11.4 on the vertical graph says “Collisions per Million Movements”. In fact, a major error has been made. This vertical axis should read “Collisions per Year”. Of course it wouldn’t be so serious if just the graph nomenclature was wrong. However, this is not the case. This error has been used in the Ambidji Report to come up with the “intolerable risk” statement.
With Ambidji believing the graph is the “Collisions per Million Movements” when the graph actually shows “Collisions per Year”, no wonder we ended up with such a grossly wrong outcome.
The error in the graph and the subsequent calculations show that by comparison with the USA, our GAAP airports are far less safe compared with the USA than reality.
See if someone has the guts to come on this site and admit to this error. See if Ambidji are prepared to issue a correction. Surely any professional firm should do so. Especially considering the damaging effect that the erroneous information has already had on our industry.
Ambidji – you are free to post. How about coming clean and telling us how this gross error has occurred, and how you intend rectifying it.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 8th Sep 2009 at 07:00.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Does this mean you think we should stick with our SAFER GAAP zones and ditch the FAA D idea?
And I am not the dumbest pilot on the planet, but I dont claim to be the smartest either, I do not have a problem with GAAP and D procedures and it seems that if we should keep our GAAP.....we might as well keep our Class D the same as it is too! No extra cost, no confusion.
Save all the confusion which ultimately leads to trouble!
J
And I am not the dumbest pilot on the planet, but I dont claim to be the smartest either, I do not have a problem with GAAP and D procedures and it seems that if we should keep our GAAP.....we might as well keep our Class D the same as it is too!
No extra cost, no confusion.Save all the confusion which ultimately leads to trouble!
J
Thread Starter
Jaba. No, it means that I believe we should base our safety decisions on facts- not sloppyness.
No other country in the world has airspace called GAAP. What's the use of having ICAO airspace classifications at all if we are going alone with a unique system.
Having flown a little bit in other countries both before and after the ICAO classifications came in I can assure that they are a great idea for safety.
No other country in the world has airspace called GAAP. What's the use of having ICAO airspace classifications at all if we are going alone with a unique system.
Having flown a little bit in other countries both before and after the ICAO classifications came in I can assure that they are a great idea for safety.
Moderator
Dick another error they made was to call a MAC in the Jandakot MBZ, as it was then, a GAAP issue!
We had a tragic MAC at Gascoyne Junction last year too, which makes it statistically more dangerous to be way out in woop woop than in the Jandakot GAAP in the time frame they used....
We had a tragic MAC at Gascoyne Junction last year too, which makes it statistically more dangerous to be way out in woop woop than in the Jandakot GAAP in the time frame they used....
Thread Starter
So it looks as if restrictions have been put on after a bogus safety study.
Is there anyone out there who is going to support the study?
Or will silence rein rather than admitting to an error?
Will our money be paid back?
Don't hold your breath!
Is there anyone out there who is going to support the study?
Or will silence rein rather than admitting to an error?
Will our money be paid back?
Don't hold your breath!
Thread Starter
Oz, because this is pprune. Surely everyone can't be in agreement that the report is a croc. Surely there are those who will defend the indefensible as usual!
Surely there are those who will defend the indefensible as usual!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely everyone can't be in agreement that the report is a croc.
If a GAAP by any other name is class D, ICAO or FAA, that debate is separate to the question as to whether CASA should get their money back.
CASA have an arse about method of achieving their goals which include threatening by "leakage" enormous cost or regulatory imposts then, in the guise of listening to the plebs, they lower the claims so everybody says that's OK it wasn't as hard as we thought. They then achieve their original goal.
It's like being shot in the head with a .22 instead of a .303. You still end up with a bad headache.
Thread Starter
Owen Stanley
I understand it’s not just a labelling error. I am getting further advice on this from independent experts, and I’ll place the advice on this thread when it is available.
Owen, I will admit I don’t understand all the calculations. Ambidji seem to be making something incredibly complex from something very simple.
We have over forty years of statistics from many millions of GAAP movements, and we can also look at the statistics from other countries – probably totalling many tens of millions at non-radar airports - to get a good idea of what the safety result will be if we use similar procedures. That’s the whole principle of the ICAO safety system where you base it on a reference.
I don’t believe I have “a legacy of unanswered questions”. I spend a lot of time answering questions on this site – some completely ridiculous and irrelevant. I have said time and time again, if there is some detail I have not answered, simply pick up the phone and talk to me. That’s what happens in Australia – or don’t you realise this is a free country and people are allowed to say what they believe and give their opinions openly. You seem to think that if you do not agree with me, that means you can’t possibly talk to me and you have to hide your real name.
This is not about “whistle blowing” or national security – it is simply about the scientific study of airspace. The fact that so many hide their names demonstrates that something “weird” is going on, and it is certainly not scientifically-based.
I understand it’s not just a labelling error. I am getting further advice on this from independent experts, and I’ll place the advice on this thread when it is available.
“or don’t you understand the calculations”?
We have over forty years of statistics from many millions of GAAP movements, and we can also look at the statistics from other countries – probably totalling many tens of millions at non-radar airports - to get a good idea of what the safety result will be if we use similar procedures. That’s the whole principle of the ICAO safety system where you base it on a reference.
I don’t believe I have “a legacy of unanswered questions”. I spend a lot of time answering questions on this site – some completely ridiculous and irrelevant. I have said time and time again, if there is some detail I have not answered, simply pick up the phone and talk to me. That’s what happens in Australia – or don’t you realise this is a free country and people are allowed to say what they believe and give their opinions openly. You seem to think that if you do not agree with me, that means you can’t possibly talk to me and you have to hide your real name.
This is not about “whistle blowing” or national security – it is simply about the scientific study of airspace. The fact that so many hide their names demonstrates that something “weird” is going on, and it is certainly not scientifically-based.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 10th Sep 2009 at 02:07. Reason: typo!
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ambidji calculations really are erroneous
This is Ian Bryce of Springside Engineering. I have just joined PPRuNe. I am the author of one review of the Ambidji Report.
Regarding independence from Dick Smith, I categorically state that all my consulting and reviewing done in a totally unprejudiced and unbiased manner. If there are findings my clients would not want to hear, they are included anyway. All my findings are open to scrutiny, and will be revised if necessary. It is exactly this testing that makes science robust. I approached Ambidji to discuss things but they refused.
Owen, the Ambidji chart on page 140 (FAA model) is not wrongly labelled. I stand by my claim that they have made a real error in overestimating the "baseline" Bankstown MAC (mid air collision) rate by a factor of 2.4 per annum (0.33 instead of 0.14). (Make sure you see my review rev C, which should be posted at Dick Smith Flyer soon).
Regarding independence from Dick Smith, I categorically state that all my consulting and reviewing done in a totally unprejudiced and unbiased manner. If there are findings my clients would not want to hear, they are included anyway. All my findings are open to scrutiny, and will be revised if necessary. It is exactly this testing that makes science robust. I approached Ambidji to discuss things but they refused.
Owen, the Ambidji chart on page 140 (FAA model) is not wrongly labelled. I stand by my claim that they have made a real error in overestimating the "baseline" Bankstown MAC (mid air collision) rate by a factor of 2.4 per annum (0.33 instead of 0.14). (Make sure you see my review rev C, which should be posted at Dick Smith Flyer soon).