Radar Coverage at Ballina
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lookleft - settle down, son.
I'm not having a go at you or RPT pilots in general, or even at Jetstar in particular - one of my best mates is a J* captain. Just pointing out in what I thought was a semi-humourous and ironic way the other side of the RPT/jet vs GA coin at non-towered airports such as Ballina.
WRT the radio call issue: there have been senior Jetstar ops people come along to present at a few CASA/Airservices aviation seminars that I have been to in several locations. On at least two occasions that I recall the issue of IFR radio calls that were unintelligible to the uninitiated was raised (not by me, BTW) and the Jetstar ops rep response was that "that makes sense, that should be easy to fix". My J* mate has raised the issue as well. Obviously for reasons you state, it's not easy to change the culture, even for minor issues like this..
I'm not having a go at you or RPT pilots in general, or even at Jetstar in particular - one of my best mates is a J* captain. Just pointing out in what I thought was a semi-humourous and ironic way the other side of the RPT/jet vs GA coin at non-towered airports such as Ballina.
WRT the radio call issue: there have been senior Jetstar ops people come along to present at a few CASA/Airservices aviation seminars that I have been to in several locations. On at least two occasions that I recall the issue of IFR radio calls that were unintelligible to the uninitiated was raised (not by me, BTW) and the Jetstar ops rep response was that "that makes sense, that should be easy to fix". My J* mate has raised the issue as well. Obviously for reasons you state, it's not easy to change the culture, even for minor issues like this..
No problems NTM the reality is we are in furious agreement over the poor standard of radio calls. You should ask your J* friend for a copy of the radio cheat sheet J* produced several years ago. It included such gems as"visual on top". 
Bloggs,
Got the message on E in the US??
I notice you still obviously believe you have or should have right of way over "VFR", only when you agree to get off the road in your "private" car, while there is a bus or truck there, and only proceed in your "private" car when there is no "scheduled or un-scheduled public transport" anywhere in the area, will I agree that you should have any prior right to airspace.
Since the advent of E, every flight I have conducted in the US, in anything from a T-6 to a B747-438, and quite a variety in between, has transited E airspace. Before E it was still called controlled airspace, VFR exempt.
Why don't you look up a few airways charts, see how much E is used in other countries, not just the USA.
I was reminded today of a very vociferous opponent of E, when it was first proposed in Australia. Said person (well known around RNAC) conducted regular tours of groups of Australian pilots around the the US, he didn't even know he had been flying in E for years.
no_one,
Add KSFO/PHNL and every off line place I went to over the years on non-sched. or freighter services.
Blokes like Bloggs just don't get it, and sadly, never will.
And that is all part of the reason why we have such a lousy safety record in Australia --- we seem to be completely "culturally" unable to adopt risk management allocated and cost benefit justified use of finite resources to produce the best air safety outcomes --- to minimise the risk.
Tootle pip!!
Got the message on E in the US??
I notice you still obviously believe you have or should have right of way over "VFR", only when you agree to get off the road in your "private" car, while there is a bus or truck there, and only proceed in your "private" car when there is no "scheduled or un-scheduled public transport" anywhere in the area, will I agree that you should have any prior right to airspace.
Since the advent of E, every flight I have conducted in the US, in anything from a T-6 to a B747-438, and quite a variety in between, has transited E airspace. Before E it was still called controlled airspace, VFR exempt.
Why don't you look up a few airways charts, see how much E is used in other countries, not just the USA.
I was reminded today of a very vociferous opponent of E, when it was first proposed in Australia. Said person (well known around RNAC) conducted regular tours of groups of Australian pilots around the the US, he didn't even know he had been flying in E for years.
no_one,
Add KSFO/PHNL and every off line place I went to over the years on non-sched. or freighter services.
Blokes like Bloggs just don't get it, and sadly, never will.
And that is all part of the reason why we have such a lousy safety record in Australia --- we seem to be completely "culturally" unable to adopt risk management allocated and cost benefit justified use of finite resources to produce the best air safety outcomes --- to minimise the risk.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class E etc. in the US .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspac...(United_States
Still don't know what it has to do with Dick having an IFR bad hair day at an airport that randomly happened to be Ballina. Surely he can't be calling for radar control services in *every* location where there are 4 IFR aircraft near an airport in IMC, can he? Of course, if everyone had ADSB out and in.....problem solved.
Still don't know what it has to do with Dick having an IFR bad hair day at an airport that randomly happened to be Ballina. Surely he can't be calling for radar control services in *every* location where there are 4 IFR aircraft near an airport in IMC, can he? Of course, if everyone had ADSB out and in.....problem solved.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Perth
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we can do mobile phones for $100, why can't a smart cookie develop ADSB-out for everything aviation? Sure, add another zero onto the cost, but wouldn't a decommission of maybe 3 or 4 VORs/NDBs pay for that?
i.e. is it really that hard to develop a device that does ADSB-out at low cost?
Add a cheap tablet that interfaces via bluetooth to an ADSB-in receiver (say, coupled with OzRunways or similar) and - wow- our situational awareness suddenly improved 100 fold.
Now that's safety improvement.
i.e. is it really that hard to develop a device that does ADSB-out at low cost?
Add a cheap tablet that interfaces via bluetooth to an ADSB-in receiver (say, coupled with OzRunways or similar) and - wow- our situational awareness suddenly improved 100 fold.
Now that's safety improvement.
google that...
A F....Latest international gliding mag has a couple of articles about ADS B ...and the cost.
Google intend to apply there elctronic smarts to produce something to cost about 500 bucks or less, therefore affordable for all.
Of course in the Land of Oz where the air is funny peculiar and ADS B is mandateds by '16... in the US of A by '20 and they will have the benefit of some of the amazing developments soon to come.
Another article re tiny watch size digital radios..Come in Dick Tracey !
Google intend to apply there elctronic smarts to produce something to cost about 500 bucks or less, therefore affordable for all.
Of course in the Land of Oz where the air is funny peculiar and ADS B is mandateds by '16... in the US of A by '20 and they will have the benefit of some of the amazing developments soon to come.
Another article re tiny watch size digital radios..Come in Dick Tracey !
Add a cheap tablet that interfaces via bluetooth to an ADSB-in receiver (say, coupled with OzRunways or similar) and - wow- our situational awareness suddenly improved 100 fold.
ADS-Pi: Low-Cost ADS-B IN for OzRunways
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smith’s friend and co-pilot on the flight to Ballina, former US Air Force F-16 fighter pilot and airline captain Richard Woodward, says the Australian system “drives me nuts”.
“You’ve got this very advanced national air traffic control system but, instead, you have pilot*s flying around in clouds saying to each other, ‘Hi, I’m here, where are you, let’s work out how not to crash into each other’,” Woodward says."
“You’ve got this very advanced national air traffic control system but, instead, you have pilot*s flying around in clouds saying to each other, ‘Hi, I’m here, where are you, let’s work out how not to crash into each other’,” Woodward says."
ADSB is now giving coverage to the ground in the West Sale/East Sale area. Radar at around F110-120. Class E to the ground with an approach service would be awesome but 1 in 1 out? Would you be happy with that? Would you be happy with the local VFR dood (in VMC of course) flying through your IMC approach?
Would you be happy with the local VFR dood (in VMC of course) flying through your IMC approach?
It happens now in G, so the only thing that changes is that the radar man is going to give you the VFR traffic. Do you have a problem with having that information, and positive separation from other IFR traffic??
Don't forget that law (and, hopefully, your sense of self preservation) requires IFR aircraft to keep their eyes out the window, particularly (obviously) in G,E and D. Being an IFR flight does not absolve you from keeping a lookout.
As to the lower levels of radar coverage around Sale, don't confuse the actual coverage with what is selected to be presented on a TAAAAAAATS screen, as was demonstrated years ago, after a celebrated "near miss" at Williamtown.
As has been said, time and again, E works just fine in the rest of the world, what is the problem in Australia that so many domestic pilots seem to believe it would higher risk than "do it yourself ATC" in G.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm on your side LeadSled! There needs to be a bit of cultural change for E to work in Australia the way it's intended to. Unfortunately, cultural change is woefully managed by both CASA & ASA.
Just out of interest, why would ADSB coverage to the ground be presented on a TAAATS screen but radar be filtered out? An ATC uses the same surveillance separation standard for both.
Just out of interest, why would ADSB coverage to the ground be presented on a TAAATS screen but radar be filtered out? An ATC uses the same surveillance separation standard for both.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Perth
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no_one - that ADSB-in interface is brilliant - that sort of thing is exactly what is required for real-world use (perhaps with a couple more levels of redundancy)... e.g. OzRunways can take input from multiple sources and display when discrepancies occur (eg. aircraft xyz has travelled at 900 knots since its last reported location when comparing source A versus source B) etc.
Don't forget that law (and, hopefully, your sense of self preservation) requires IFR aircraft to keep their eyes out the window, particularly (obviously) in G,E and D. Being an IFR flight does not absolve you from keeping a lookout.
It happens now in G, so the only thing that changes is that the radar man is going to give you the VFR traffic.
I'm all for CA/GROs or Class D; just keep the enthusiastic amateurs off the airwaves. Things are busy enough as it is in the terminal area already.
Lookout doesn't work and nor does simultaneous comms on two radios in two-pilot ops!
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
No it's nothing like class F
ICAO class F lists no radio for VFR.
ICAO class F lists no radio for VFR.
The fact that you and LeedSlud cannot come to grips with is that well before Alphabet soup airspace was invented, Australians created a useable, practical and cost-effective airspace system. We didn't have millions of radars, we didn't have millions of dollars to spend, nor did we need millions of miles of controlled airspace.
To placate the obsession of some to comply with what is done do O/S, we had to have a name. So "someone" thought G would be best, when in fact F is far more appropriate as it accurately describes services to IFR. Of course, "G" has served the argument of critics of our system that "IFR are on their own" well, when in fact our Class G provides so much more than crummy old ICAO G. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story eh...
Next...
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs, with all due respect, I believe you are a victim of the Australian Culture which does not like change of any sort. You would of course be aware that the only thing that is constant in Aviation is change!!
Whilst we could always return to the days of Flight Service, that we know is not going to happen. Yes, having Class F was discussed at length many times and I agree it would be more appropriate in many areas than G, but that is what the decision makers at the time decided, so we live with that (for the moment at least??) Many still live in the world of FS and want that to work in today's airspace model. Those folk need a big wake up call - this is 2015 and not 1980! (mind you, there were many things that were done much better back then, than now, but CASA don't have the corporate knowledge and history of what happened back then in the good old days of DCA - maybe if they did, it might be different?)
The fact that Class E works elsewhere in the world is at least a good reason to examine it in the Australian context. The real problem with its introduction is that those that even supported the ICAO menu of airspace classes did not at the time understand fully the implications of the change/s and how to introduce it across the board. For many that operated in upper airspace etc there was little or no change. However as we know the changes in what was OCTA did change and that is what we now have to deal with. I have operated in Class E and it is not an issue, provided you understand how it works and appreciate that VFRs may be about, hopefully monitoring the correct frequency.
Again, this brings about the amount of education required at all levels and the ability to address the culture issues that you and others don't seem to acknowledge. CASA have never appreciated the entrenched culture within this industry and have certainly never applied the required resources to bring about effective change (hello...look at the mess of Part 61..!)
Part of the problem is addressing pilots in the airlines that don't operate in E/G very often and they still believe it to be OCTA as it was years ago. Wrong! Some of the folk that wont let this happen are in fact senior pilots with the major carriers and it is very difficult to even talk to them about this as many don't accept they should be lectured to on this, or anything else for that matter. If CASA can get thru that gate, they will be doing well, but since they presently have very little credibility and very few pilots with appropriate experience I will not hold my breath. Maybe the new DAS can change that, but it like most things will take time.
By the way, have you ever in a two-crew op tried to work it so that one pilot has ATC as primary and the other pilot has the CTAF as primary - using the volume controls. I have, and it works well if briefed correctly.
The use of radio as discussed previously, is in this country, close to out of control with far too many transmissions and many that don't mean anything to anybody but the one doing the talking !! You need to get value for money out of every time you press the PTT. Again education and a change of culture is the key to getting it right.
Maybe we should introduce some F so that we have an excuse for a major education program?? The question is: are CASA up to that?? Certainly the OAR have little understanding of what is out there in the real world, so it would have to come from elsewhere.
Whilst we could always return to the days of Flight Service, that we know is not going to happen. Yes, having Class F was discussed at length many times and I agree it would be more appropriate in many areas than G, but that is what the decision makers at the time decided, so we live with that (for the moment at least??) Many still live in the world of FS and want that to work in today's airspace model. Those folk need a big wake up call - this is 2015 and not 1980! (mind you, there were many things that were done much better back then, than now, but CASA don't have the corporate knowledge and history of what happened back then in the good old days of DCA - maybe if they did, it might be different?)
The fact that Class E works elsewhere in the world is at least a good reason to examine it in the Australian context. The real problem with its introduction is that those that even supported the ICAO menu of airspace classes did not at the time understand fully the implications of the change/s and how to introduce it across the board. For many that operated in upper airspace etc there was little or no change. However as we know the changes in what was OCTA did change and that is what we now have to deal with. I have operated in Class E and it is not an issue, provided you understand how it works and appreciate that VFRs may be about, hopefully monitoring the correct frequency.
Again, this brings about the amount of education required at all levels and the ability to address the culture issues that you and others don't seem to acknowledge. CASA have never appreciated the entrenched culture within this industry and have certainly never applied the required resources to bring about effective change (hello...look at the mess of Part 61..!)
Part of the problem is addressing pilots in the airlines that don't operate in E/G very often and they still believe it to be OCTA as it was years ago. Wrong! Some of the folk that wont let this happen are in fact senior pilots with the major carriers and it is very difficult to even talk to them about this as many don't accept they should be lectured to on this, or anything else for that matter. If CASA can get thru that gate, they will be doing well, but since they presently have very little credibility and very few pilots with appropriate experience I will not hold my breath. Maybe the new DAS can change that, but it like most things will take time.
By the way, have you ever in a two-crew op tried to work it so that one pilot has ATC as primary and the other pilot has the CTAF as primary - using the volume controls. I have, and it works well if briefed correctly.
The use of radio as discussed previously, is in this country, close to out of control with far too many transmissions and many that don't mean anything to anybody but the one doing the talking !! You need to get value for money out of every time you press the PTT. Again education and a change of culture is the key to getting it right.
Maybe we should introduce some F so that we have an excuse for a major education program?? The question is: are CASA up to that?? Certainly the OAR have little understanding of what is out there in the real world, so it would have to come from elsewhere.
Last edited by triadic; 5th Jun 2015 at 01:46. Reason: typo
Triadic:
I never said I wanted FS back. I'm quite happy with my beepback, AWIB and tablet update from the NIS. A CA/GRO is an appropriate step up from a CTAF. Speaking of FS, what on earth could justify Firies yakking on the CTAF? I have the utmost respect for their primary job, but having one of them in action on a busy CTAF throwing in their two-bobs worth is not going to help anyone :Hey guys, just letting you know there's a loud on the top of that hill! Don't run into it!". If a CTAF is that busy (Ballina), put in a CA/GRO (properly trained, not "a couple of units of the ATCO course") or a tower.
Completely missed my point. We have a class F service in our uncontrolled airspace now. The term "Class F" didn't suit the master plan which was to use the "Class G" term to complain about our unsafe operations OCTA by Dick Smith and Richard Woodward; exactly as is occurring now (as well as some nit-picking bureaucrat who noted that Class F is "temporary" on the way to implementing Class E).
You can't be serious? Until someone goes whizzing past your windscreen? Is Class E supposed to raise even further the hairs on the back of my neck Because I know that even if I do spot a lighty, if he's on a collision course with me, I will probably be unable to avoid him. Class E means "VFR exempt" = non-participation. The whole idea is that VFR can do as they please talking to no-one. Get them on frequency and get them talking to me.
The implications? No radar and no ADS-B = procedural control, not to mention how many extra ATC sectors required?
You cannot be serious again... the reason we have two pilots is that the decisions are better; two heads are better than one. How can that occur with what is effectively single-pilot comms? "ATC says do this!" "But Captain, there's a lighty turning right!" "What? where is he again?!"
You don't change an airspace system because people talk too much.
And the major education program would be what... "Err, we're really operating in what ICAO would call Class F with it's IFR Air Traffic Advisory Service, so... nothing's changed...continue on as per normal..."
Whilst we could always return to the days of Flight Service, that we know is not going to happen.
Yes, having Class F was discussed at length many times and I agree it would be more appropriate in many areas than G,
I have operated in Class E and it is not an issue, provided you understand how it works and appreciate that VFRs may be about, hopefully monitoring the correct frequency.
The implications? No radar and no ADS-B = procedural control, not to mention how many extra ATC sectors required?
By the way, have you ever in a two-crew op tried to work it so that one pilot has ATC as primary and the other pilot has the CTAF as primary - using the volume controls. I have, and it works well if briefed correctly.
The use of radio as discussed previously, is in this country, close to out of control with far too many transmissions and many that don't mean anything to anybody but the one doing the talking !! You need to get value for money out of every time you press the PTT. Again education and a change of culture is the key to getting it right.
Maybe we should introduce some F so that we have an excuse for a major education program??
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear Blogsie,
you sound just like that regional captain that "Instructed" me to hold East of the field until he had departed on an absolute CAVOK day, then got all snarky because I told him I was just entering the holding pattern overhead before conducting a practice NDB approach. Mate with due respect RPT do not own the skies over Australia, (the RAAF does).
Maybe a sabbatical to the USA to see how airspace is supposed to work might enlighten you. An afternoon doing circuits at Teterborough at half past four on a Friday afternoon should convince you.
you sound just like that regional captain that "Instructed" me to hold East of the field until he had departed on an absolute CAVOK day, then got all snarky because I told him I was just entering the holding pattern overhead before conducting a practice NDB approach. Mate with due respect RPT do not own the skies over Australia, (the RAAF does).
Maybe a sabbatical to the USA to see how airspace is supposed to work might enlighten you. An afternoon doing circuits at Teterborough at half past four on a Friday afternoon should convince you.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi Blogsie, yes I have to agree with thorny - you sound like a check captain that I used to work with - had blinkers on all day and never thought outside the box, nor considered empathy for other users.
From what you say, you are an example of the problem - CULTURE CHANGE AND EDUCATION and we might see some significant changes.
Oh and part of the deal would be to teach airmanship and situational awareness like they did 30+ years ago. Not much of each surfacing from many flying schools or airline training departments these days.
From what you say, you are an example of the problem - CULTURE CHANGE AND EDUCATION and we might see some significant changes.
Oh and part of the deal would be to teach airmanship and situational awareness like they did 30+ years ago. Not much of each surfacing from many flying schools or airline training departments these days.
Could you two point out anywhere that indicates I don't show "considered empathy for other users."? Thanks.
You're both quite welcome to sit in my jumpseat at any time to see how I operate OCTA. I have used hundreds of kgs of fuel and time over the years to help out VFRs during arrivals and departures; fitting in, it's called. I've orbited over the top of places waiting to "get a slot" at busy regional airports. If you guys have a problem with Capt Blighs, then complain to someone else. Mind you, with Leadsled showing the bird to an A380 because he can, no wonder some of my ilk are becoming a little jaded with portions of the VFR fraternity...
It is a pity that you guys (Triadic, I'm surprised) can't argue the toss re the facts. Class F for example. What exactly is wrong with what I said above? Nothing, so you accuse me of being a Capn Bligh.
I am really concerned that most seem quite comfortable with RPT jets with over 100 seats operating in an unalerted See and be Seen environment.
I'm also concerned with the concept of one pilot using Comm 1 on ATC and the other on the CTAF. For goodness sake, the reason we have two pilots is to make the decisions twice as good. That can't happen when each is doing their own thing! And yes, Triadic, I did consider it once or twice. It's the one of the more dangerous things one could do. That is one of the reasons I dislike E; nobody has actually explained how, at Ballina, an RPT crew would reasonably cope with ATC on one freq giving them clearances for this and that down to 700ft and on the other them self-segregating with the VFR that was there (and listening to the well-intentioned firey). You guys read the brochures and believe it all. Just like the glossy "Class G" and "Class F". Try it and one day the wheels will fall off. And, of course, it'll be the hapless jet crew that gets thrown in the clink because they broke Leeadies law and didn't look out so as to See and Avoid the VFR they ran in to. The only reason Class E works is the big sky theory.
Teterboro: I'd quite like operating there. High pressure Class D with B on top. The guide recommends VFR plan to hold outside the zone for extended periods during 1300-2100 IIRC. Got any better examples than that, Thornbird?
As for change, I don't mind change. I like it when it's for the better. Nothing I have seen in the last 40 years of Australia's airspace design has particularly been for the better. Routine No-Radio at jet ports was madness and was never accepted by CASA, thank goodness. And the problem was?? There was none. Everybody goes about their business, talks on the radio. Only the selfish ones who refuse to fit in continue to bang on about it. Meanwhile, the industry was in turmoil for decades.
You're both quite welcome to sit in my jumpseat at any time to see how I operate OCTA. I have used hundreds of kgs of fuel and time over the years to help out VFRs during arrivals and departures; fitting in, it's called. I've orbited over the top of places waiting to "get a slot" at busy regional airports. If you guys have a problem with Capt Blighs, then complain to someone else. Mind you, with Leadsled showing the bird to an A380 because he can, no wonder some of my ilk are becoming a little jaded with portions of the VFR fraternity...
It is a pity that you guys (Triadic, I'm surprised) can't argue the toss re the facts. Class F for example. What exactly is wrong with what I said above? Nothing, so you accuse me of being a Capn Bligh.
I am really concerned that most seem quite comfortable with RPT jets with over 100 seats operating in an unalerted See and be Seen environment.
I'm also concerned with the concept of one pilot using Comm 1 on ATC and the other on the CTAF. For goodness sake, the reason we have two pilots is to make the decisions twice as good. That can't happen when each is doing their own thing! And yes, Triadic, I did consider it once or twice. It's the one of the more dangerous things one could do. That is one of the reasons I dislike E; nobody has actually explained how, at Ballina, an RPT crew would reasonably cope with ATC on one freq giving them clearances for this and that down to 700ft and on the other them self-segregating with the VFR that was there (and listening to the well-intentioned firey). You guys read the brochures and believe it all. Just like the glossy "Class G" and "Class F". Try it and one day the wheels will fall off. And, of course, it'll be the hapless jet crew that gets thrown in the clink because they broke Leeadies law and didn't look out so as to See and Avoid the VFR they ran in to. The only reason Class E works is the big sky theory.
Teterboro: I'd quite like operating there. High pressure Class D with B on top. The guide recommends VFR plan to hold outside the zone for extended periods during 1300-2100 IIRC. Got any better examples than that, Thornbird?
As for change, I don't mind change. I like it when it's for the better. Nothing I have seen in the last 40 years of Australia's airspace design has particularly been for the better. Routine No-Radio at jet ports was madness and was never accepted by CASA, thank goodness. And the problem was?? There was none. Everybody goes about their business, talks on the radio. Only the selfish ones who refuse to fit in continue to bang on about it. Meanwhile, the industry was in turmoil for decades.
Well folks,
Ol' Bloggs has really nailed his colours to the to the foremast. An experienced RPT Captain and airspace and safety expert like Triadic doesn't know what he is talking about, but good ol' Bloggsie got it all taped.
The rest of the world is out of step, but Bloggsie has the answer. Actually, there is a very interesting book including the life and times of an MMA Captain of old, I'll just call him Captain Reg., who had quite a piece about people who think like Bloggsie. It wasn't praise.
Sort of explains why, in about 1996, AOPA inaugurated an annual award, names after a WA bloke some of you might guess, the award going to the person, whose efforts were above and beyond the call of duty in impeding aviation progress in the previous twelve months.
The trophy was a bone headed flightless bird, the CASAWARY, with its head buried in the sand.
We must be a sexist lot, come to think of it, it has never been awarded to other than a bloke.
Tootle pip!!
Ol' Bloggs has really nailed his colours to the to the foremast. An experienced RPT Captain and airspace and safety expert like Triadic doesn't know what he is talking about, but good ol' Bloggsie got it all taped.
The rest of the world is out of step, but Bloggsie has the answer. Actually, there is a very interesting book including the life and times of an MMA Captain of old, I'll just call him Captain Reg., who had quite a piece about people who think like Bloggsie. It wasn't praise.
Sort of explains why, in about 1996, AOPA inaugurated an annual award, names after a WA bloke some of you might guess, the award going to the person, whose efforts were above and beyond the call of duty in impeding aviation progress in the previous twelve months.
The trophy was a bone headed flightless bird, the CASAWARY, with its head buried in the sand.
We must be a sexist lot, come to think of it, it has never been awarded to other than a bloke.
Tootle pip!!