Merged: The Ambidji Report CASA should get their money back!
Thread Starter
I am not vilifying anyone- just stating a fact.
Lots of our forefathers risked and even lost their lives so that Australians could be free to state their true beliefs without fear.
The cowards on this site are an insult to these heroes.
And I am being dead serious.
Lots of our forefathers risked and even lost their lives so that Australians could be free to state their true beliefs without fear.
The cowards on this site are an insult to these heroes.
And I am being dead serious.
Yes, it is vilification & tell the freedom bit to the modern government business - they don't understand the concept. They're quite on for a good witch hunt.
As I've said before I'm just a pleb ATC & there is nothing to be gained by using my name - it adds precisely nothing to the debate.
I'm being dead serious too.
As I've said before I'm just a pleb ATC & there is nothing to be gained by using my name - it adds precisely nothing to the debate.
I'm being dead serious too.
Thread Starter
A basic point-- it's not possible for me to vilify someone who is anonymous.
And Ping, there is something to be gained by posting under your own name- you would feel empowered and you would more likely be taken notice of.
And it's actually allowed under the pprune rules!
And Ping, there is something to be gained by posting under your own name- you would feel empowered and you would more likely be taken notice of.
And it's actually allowed under the pprune rules!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Ambidji Report
I am still battling to fathom why the CASA chose to go well beyond the findings of the Ambidji report. The discovery made in the report gives strong indicative hints to the most appropriate way forward. I find it difficult to buy the argument that the ICAO audit, and contextual comments regarding reference systems could be used as a trigger for something else, as most here have acknowledged (or at least now know) that the fit was never going to provide the required throughput as an approach tower ICAO D or C TMA. Taking the reference system one step further, a very basic comparision would have shown OAR and (as seems the case) the ANSP, that GAAP and its delivered safety result to GA over many years and millions of movements is really not the crux of the problem.
- ATC resources (the number of operating positions) in these busy towers (eyes watching and alerting)
- Training and maintaining the trainers
- Training and monitoring the new kids on the block.
Look at the factors apparent in some of these accidents. Is it really the procedures?, or is it slack or ill prepared application of them?
Perhaps the CASA should do more of the latter and continually be looking for ways to meaninfully educate, as well as improving safety when technological advance permits. That would go a long way towards reducing the former, which in turn will present less opportunity for industry to be thrown in to the frying pan full of screwednomatterwhichway!
le Pingouin Wise words!
I am still battling to fathom why the CASA chose to go well beyond the findings of the Ambidji report. The discovery made in the report gives strong indicative hints to the most appropriate way forward. I find it difficult to buy the argument that the ICAO audit, and contextual comments regarding reference systems could be used as a trigger for something else, as most here have acknowledged (or at least now know) that the fit was never going to provide the required throughput as an approach tower ICAO D or C TMA. Taking the reference system one step further, a very basic comparision would have shown OAR and (as seems the case) the ANSP, that GAAP and its delivered safety result to GA over many years and millions of movements is really not the crux of the problem.
- ATC resources (the number of operating positions) in these busy towers (eyes watching and alerting)
- Training and maintaining the trainers
- Training and monitoring the new kids on the block.
Look at the factors apparent in some of these accidents. Is it really the procedures?, or is it slack or ill prepared application of them?
Perhaps the CASA should do more of the latter and continually be looking for ways to meaninfully educate, as well as improving safety when technological advance permits. That would go a long way towards reducing the former, which in turn will present less opportunity for industry to be thrown in to the frying pan full of screwednomatterwhichway!
le Pingouin Wise words!
staffing
15 years ago BK tower had a staff of 25 now it has 12! (To operate the same number of positions) I know 25 is too many but 12 is definatly too few, and who's fault is that 1.ASA and 2.CASA. All the other GAAP's are in the same boat
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
ferris;
How many people on PPRune has Dick Smith taken legal action against?
Only one that I know of, so it is not nonsense.
Cowards, well,, He is making a point I believe, that an anonymous identity can spruik QANGO propaganda under the guise of protecting the posters job while at other times "commercial in confidence" is used by that same QANGO to hide their real agendas. They won't ring him because that would give prove the point.
I recall he once offered one bloke a ride in the Citation to talk things over, but that offer went untaken because it would have, as it turned out, confirmed the man a hypocrite.
Don't get me going about playing the man. I have been the focus of some here who feel it their duty to expose my identity on other forums. Even when my identity has been exposed I have been called a coward. (not around my mates on ANZAC day though).
As for the Military/ Cathay observation, and not that I would bring up the sh!t that a combination of players from both camps has cost me financially, history is obviously lost on you.
Back to the Ambidji claim that there was intolerable risk, which has now been clearly discredited. CASA should immediately remove the restrictions and changes which were placed because that claim was made.
Only then can objective and consultative arguements be heard.
Why don't you all focus on achieving that instead of "playing the man"?
How many people on PPRune has Dick Smith taken legal action against?
Only one that I know of, so it is not nonsense.
Cowards, well,, He is making a point I believe, that an anonymous identity can spruik QANGO propaganda under the guise of protecting the posters job while at other times "commercial in confidence" is used by that same QANGO to hide their real agendas. They won't ring him because that would give prove the point.
I recall he once offered one bloke a ride in the Citation to talk things over, but that offer went untaken because it would have, as it turned out, confirmed the man a hypocrite.
Don't get me going about playing the man. I have been the focus of some here who feel it their duty to expose my identity on other forums. Even when my identity has been exposed I have been called a coward. (not around my mates on ANZAC day though).
As for the Military/ Cathay observation, and not that I would bring up the sh!t that a combination of players from both camps has cost me financially, history is obviously lost on you.
Back to the Ambidji claim that there was intolerable risk, which has now been clearly discredited. CASA should immediately remove the restrictions and changes which were placed because that claim was made.
Only then can objective and consultative arguements be heard.
Why don't you all focus on achieving that instead of "playing the man"?
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank, the other argument is Dick posts under a pseudonym, then the personalities are taken out and only the argument is then debated, not the man!
If Dick post anonymously, then no one would know its him and he would have more chance of getting his point across, if its backed up with good argument!
But then would Dicks ego allow it!
If Dick post anonymously, then no one would know its him and he would have more chance of getting his point across, if its backed up with good argument!
But then would Dicks ego allow it!
Francis....this thread is a nonsence! The originator profered the Ambidji report was flawed- He proposed the CASA should get it's money back...The question remains...what part of the Ambidji report did the CASA use to proclaim a change in procedures at GAAP aerodromes?
Tail between legs fall back position of "you annonymous bullies are beating up on me" is wearing pretty thin. The argument does not stand...either modify your argument from a different position or concede you were wrong.
Tail between legs fall back position of "you annonymous bullies are beating up on me" is wearing pretty thin. The argument does not stand...either modify your argument from a different position or concede you were wrong.
Thread Starter
OZ I have never used the word "bully" or complained about being beaten up on. I think they are pathetic!
I think they are wimps because they claim to have genuine views about aviation safety (ie peoples lives) but never reveal their true identity so they can be effective.
Do they really believe that by cowardly hiding their names that they can ever have any real influence on this important issue? Probably not- more like acting as "spoilers" to stop anyone else succeeding. Pathetic!
Isn't it interesting that not one person in Australia publically supports their views.
I think they are wimps because they claim to have genuine views about aviation safety (ie peoples lives) but never reveal their true identity so they can be effective.
Do they really believe that by cowardly hiding their names that they can ever have any real influence on this important issue? Probably not- more like acting as "spoilers" to stop anyone else succeeding. Pathetic!
Isn't it interesting that not one person in Australia publically supports their views.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets Move on and fix the Problem
Who cares what Dick and his band of redneck groupies think. Lets move on. The Ambidji report might or might not have triggered action but the real issue is safety at secondary airports. I have been flying since 1973 and believe me there is a problem. The statistics prove it and frankly I wont go near them until its sorted. Whatever you think of the response full marks for the regulator doing what it is supposed to do - regulate. I suppose I can expect the usual hate mail from the usual suspects now...
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
twodogsflying;
It works both ways. Because Dick posts under his real name, his posts are open to legal action if the agrieved feels inclined. He puts his name to his opinion. A lot here with agendas to drive, hide behind the pseudonyms and are not open to legal or personal challenge.
OZBUSDRIVER;
The Ambidgi report and the GAAP debacle are intertwined wouldn't you say?
Would you agree both are then flawed?
Do you not agree CASA should roll back the whole affair and open it to public consultation?
Your last para is axiological given your support to the the
and conspirators who used an innocent and influential persons identity to ridicule and defame me and others. If you lie down with dogs you get fleas.
It works both ways. Because Dick posts under his real name, his posts are open to legal action if the agrieved feels inclined. He puts his name to his opinion. A lot here with agendas to drive, hide behind the pseudonyms and are not open to legal or personal challenge.
OZBUSDRIVER;
The Ambidgi report and the GAAP debacle are intertwined wouldn't you say?
Would you agree both are then flawed?
Do you not agree CASA should roll back the whole affair and open it to public consultation?
Your last para is axiological given your support to the the
annonymous bullies
It works both ways. Because Dick posts under his real name, his posts are open to legal action if the agrieved feels inclined. He puts his name to his opinion. A lot here with agendas to drive, hide behind the pseudonyms and are not open to legal or personal challenge.
How can you know there are agendas? Just because people oppose you doesn't mean they have an agneda. Just because they say similar things doesn't mean they have an agenda. Maybe, just maybe, the similarity of perspective is generated by the aviation role they fill.
Me, I'm just a pleb ATC.
I think they are wimps because they claim to have genuine views about aviation safety (ie peoples lives) but never reveal their true identity so they can be effective.
Do they really believe that by cowardly hiding their names that they can ever have any real influence on this important issue? Probably not- more like acting as "spoilers" to stop anyone else succeeding. Pathetic!
Isn't it interesting that not one person in Australia publically supports their views.
Do they really believe that by cowardly hiding their names that they can ever have any real influence on this important issue? Probably not- more like acting as "spoilers" to stop anyone else succeeding. Pathetic!
Isn't it interesting that not one person in Australia publically supports their views.
How is PPRune a proper forum for trying to achieve safety reform? Mayhap there are more appropriate fora that we direct our energies toward where we aren't anonymous?
Who in the media would pay attention to Fred Blogs, individual ATC for more than a few seconds?
Can you honestly imagine anyone paying you a skerrick of attention in this if you weren't already famous? The media will give you a hearing because you're Dick Smth, not just becuase of the subject material. Who else here has that kind of pull?
Dick,
This is really getting to you, isn't it? Quite frankly it doesn't worry me if "wimps" disagree with what I say here. I really don't care what their names are. I study their arguments and decide whether to agree or not, to act on their suggestions or not.
As for being not being effective because they are anonymous, do you really think that CASA takes any notice of a Prune post based on who the author's pen name is? Besides, much to your disgust, we HAVE been effective in the past, and we will continue to be, regardless of who we call ourselves here.
If you don't like the way Prune operates, you can always leave.
Frank,
I assume that was Tacan400?
No it was not. Nor is this line of debate in any way related to the thread topic.
Tail Wheel
I think they are wimps because they claim to have genuine views about aviation safety (ie peoples lives) but never reveal their true identity so they can be effective.
Do they really believe that by cowardly hiding their names that they can ever have any real influence on this important issue? Probably not- more like acting as "spoilers" to stop anyone else succeeding. Pathetic!
Do they really believe that by cowardly hiding their names that they can ever have any real influence on this important issue? Probably not- more like acting as "spoilers" to stop anyone else succeeding. Pathetic!
As for being not being effective because they are anonymous, do you really think that CASA takes any notice of a Prune post based on who the author's pen name is? Besides, much to your disgust, we HAVE been effective in the past, and we will continue to be, regardless of who we call ourselves here.
If you don't like the way Prune operates, you can always leave.
Frank,
How many people on PPRuNe has Dick Smith taken legal action against?
Only one that I know of,
Only one that I know of,
No it was not. Nor is this line of debate in any way related to the thread topic.
Tail Wheel
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clever, Cute And Machievellian
I'll just repost here seeing that the threads are pretty close on content.
Maybe I pinged after everybody else, but then maybe not.
What I have been trying to figure is why the insistence on FAA D instead of GAAP, when the following was written on GAAP:
Quote:
Personally, I believe that airports such as Bankstown have some of the safest procedures that I have experienced in the world.
So why go to the extra expense of FAA D, when GAAP serves the purpose?
Ah, standardisation we are told. If we change GAAP to FAA D, then we have D at both present GAAP and regional locations. What could make more sense - we would have 'harmonisation.'? So the Machievellian bit goes like this:
It was always about E terminal and I kick myself that I didn't wake up earlier.
I'll just repost here seeing that the threads are pretty close on content.
Maybe I pinged after everybody else, but then maybe not.
What I have been trying to figure is why the insistence on FAA D instead of GAAP, when the following was written on GAAP:
Quote:
Personally, I believe that airports such as Bankstown have some of the safest procedures that I have experienced in the world.
So why go to the extra expense of FAA D, when GAAP serves the purpose?
Ah, standardisation we are told. If we change GAAP to FAA D, then we have D at both present GAAP and regional locations. What could make more sense - we would have 'harmonisation.'? So the Machievellian bit goes like this:
- We change GAAP to FAA Class D for 'harmonisation' with the regional towers.
- After all, GAAP is pretty close to FAA Class D anyway, so what's the difference?
- But, hang on, we now have a mismatch, because there are two distinct types of Class D with different procedures- we have ICAO D and FAA D.
- This is potentially confusing and dangerous (Minister).
- So, for consistency, and to stop this dangerous confusion that will lead to a mid-air, we must convert ICAO D airspace to FAA D airspace.
- Right, done and dusted, we are now 'harmonised.'
- But, hold the boat, we now have a bastardised system, 'unique to Australia,' because nowhere in the world (read US) do we have Class C over FAA D.
- In the 'proven' system of the US, all Class D airspace has overlying E.
- And here we get to the true endgame.
It was always about E terminal and I kick myself that I didn't wake up earlier.
Thread Starter
And, by the way, the ATSB report on the Launy incident did not state that the E airspace should be changed.
It was good to get their support.
When I last looked there were less RA's during the year of NAS2b than in the years before and after.
No wonder the system works so well in the USA- even the ATC's employed by Airservices love it at they can concentrate their attention to where the risk is greatest.
It was good to get their support.
When I last looked there were less RA's during the year of NAS2b than in the years before and after.
No wonder the system works so well in the USA- even the ATC's employed by Airservices love it at they can concentrate their attention to where the risk is greatest.
Since CASA changed the rules to allow no radio no transponder basic sports aviation types (i.e. hang gliders, paragliders, gyrocopters, small ultralights etc.) access to Class E airspace, I find it difficult to accept that changing the current Class C over Class D to E over D wouldn't result in a reduction in safety.
Class C with its associated requirements over D clearly provides greater safety.
Class C with its associated requirements over D clearly provides greater safety.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith
Not sure that is correct. You must properly take into account that during the Class E experiment, airspace that was class C before and after would report both BoS and Airprox incidents. As we all know, whilst it was E (no separation between IFR and VFR), what would otherwise be reported as a BoS or Airprox was no longer categorised the same way.
RA statistics can only be valid if a comparision is split is made between CTA and CTR A through D, and separately E through G.
The Serious Incident Airprox north of YMLT between a Boeing 737 and a Tobago
200305235
Was one of a number during 'the experiment' that highlighted the inherent comparative weakness of class E airspace when compared to class C. Of that there is no doubt.
A simple search of the US NTSB database for class E and D NMAC and MAC will reveal a similar trend
When I last looked there were less RA's during the year of NAS2b than in the years before and after.
RA statistics can only be valid if a comparision is split is made between CTA and CTR A through D, and separately E through G.
The Serious Incident Airprox north of YMLT between a Boeing 737 and a Tobago
200305235
Was one of a number during 'the experiment' that highlighted the inherent comparative weakness of class E airspace when compared to class C. Of that there is no doubt.
A simple search of the US NTSB database for class E and D NMAC and MAC will reveal a similar trend