Further CASA CTAF problems shows not working!
There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis – with no hint that this practice is unsafe.
Thread Starter
So why don't you comment about all our airline aircraft flying around in uncontrolled G terminal airspace like Ballina where there is no transponder requirement so TCAS won't work at all?
And there isn't even a Unicom to confirm the " calling in the blind" announcements are actually working!
I know of course- that's how we have done it since the 1950s and our minds are set in concrete so we must never re allocate airspace categories based on risk. Always keep the status quo.
And there isn't even a Unicom to confirm the " calling in the blind" announcements are actually working!
I know of course- that's how we have done it since the 1950s and our minds are set in concrete so we must never re allocate airspace categories based on risk. Always keep the status quo.
You dont see European pilots or controllers bitching and whinging like teenage girls.
Whats wrong with Australian pilots and controllers? Are they somehow not as good as pilots and controllers elsewhere?
Whats wrong with Australian pilots and controllers? Are they somehow not as good as pilots and controllers elsewhere?
A sexist comment and schoolboy taunts!
I can see now why your reforms didn't get through when you were Chair of CAA.
We don't have UNICOMs because they are next to useless as known traffic and weather can't be provided under the rules.
That's why Clive Wilson at Lord Howe no longer is listed in the ERS and no longer can provide a safe Unicom service at zero cost.
That's why Clive Wilson at Lord Howe no longer is listed in the ERS and no longer can provide a safe Unicom service at zero cost.
My mind boggles that you actually believe that there are hundreds of FBO receptionists, baggage handlers and refuellers around the country all poised with their thumb over the press to talk, just itching to jump in and help sort out that mess in the circuit, but gagged because they can't pass traffic?
that's how we have done it since the 1950s
But then things got improved.
Thread Starter
Lookleft. That was clearly a post from someone calling themselves the Leyland Brothers.
It was not my post or view at all.
Traffic. Yes that full position/AFIS system cost at least $70 m a year.
That means about $1.4 billion has not had to be paid out since I abolished the system.
I wanted to move to the proven low cost North American system where third party confirmation was provided by a low cost Unicom operator- a person already at the airport.
And where we have at least one airport where the free service can be provided- Lord Howe - it is prevented by CASA.
I bet lots of airports would have the service if it was non prescriptive like the USA.
It was not my post or view at all.
Traffic. Yes that full position/AFIS system cost at least $70 m a year.
That means about $1.4 billion has not had to be paid out since I abolished the system.
I wanted to move to the proven low cost North American system where third party confirmation was provided by a low cost Unicom operator- a person already at the airport.
And where we have at least one airport where the free service can be provided- Lord Howe - it is prevented by CASA.
I bet lots of airports would have the service if it was non prescriptive like the USA.
That means about $1.4 billion has not had to be paid out since I abolished the system.
Ironically, Dick, your abolition of the system paid for the Seasprite debacle. Kaman Corporation is eternally grateful to you and the other suckers in the Australian aviation industry for the $1.4 billion.
The Seasprite project was much better use of the $1.4 billion 'saved' from the aviation industry, I'm sure you would agree.
That's why Clive Wilson at Lord Howe no longer is listed in the ERS
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The radar direction letter came because it's clearly not possible to operate C safely without primary and secondary radar.
That said, and as I stated before, if the argument had been put that we should, as a modern aviation country, have radar in Class C these days, then you'd have had got no argument out of me. Instead, we got a 'too clever by half' letter to a gormless minister with the clear intent (IMHO) of deliberately deceiving him.
How would the controller know where the VFR aircraft was located when above say 7500'?
On the FPL, there were the tick/flick boxes that allowed the VFR pilot to indicate what aids he/she was qualified to use. In my time, the great majority were qualified to use the three basics - ADF, VOR and DME. In short, they were qualified to give you a legitimate instrument-position report. If they ticked the box on a particular aid, they were telling you that they were qualified to use it and that the info could legitimately be used for separation.
For those that did not have any quals, the VFR routes in to and out of places like Darwin and Alice provided guaranteed visual fixes in respect of separation.
Then came the 'Flight Note.' What an innovation that was, whereby the controller didn't have a clue as to what the capabilities of the PIC were in order to expedite traffic flow. That was a breathtakingly stupid move in respect of 'system efficiency!'
You can't put a VFR aircraft on a procedural IFR route or position if the aircraft is not fitted with IFR aids.
I forgot. I know how you handle this non radar class C problem - "remain OCTA"
And he's no longer saying that the changes "he" made resulted in savings "to the industry". I think it's finally dawned on him that the cessation of funding of aviation infrastructure as a common good did not, in fact, result in the industry saving a cent.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LB and Fujji,
I saw, directly, the amount of money that was wasted on 'ideology.' The dollars were massive for no gain. Other than fracturing the industry.
All because a certain individual had enough 'political pull' (IMHO) to push a flawed agenda. No system safety case, no cost/benefit - not even a very basic risk analysis. There was an 'implementation safety case,' but it was tosh from my perspective. Merely designed to ram through an agenda based on nothing more than opinion and ignoring the proposed system flaws. The 'inconvenient truths' were ignored because they were inconvenient to the argument.
The worst few years I ever spent in any job.
I saw, directly, the amount of money that was wasted on 'ideology.' The dollars were massive for no gain. Other than fracturing the industry.
All because a certain individual had enough 'political pull' (IMHO) to push a flawed agenda. No system safety case, no cost/benefit - not even a very basic risk analysis. There was an 'implementation safety case,' but it was tosh from my perspective. Merely designed to ram through an agenda based on nothing more than opinion and ignoring the proposed system flaws. The 'inconvenient truths' were ignored because they were inconvenient to the argument.
The worst few years I ever spent in any job.
Thread Starter
Rediculous statements re the money saved not assisting the aviation industry but somehow being used to fund the Super Seasprite disaster.
Bringing the staff from 7000 to 4000 clearly saved the aviation industry a fortune. Most of these people were paid by the aviation industry and that's where the saving went.
AsA has never been funded by the taxpayer- always by the industry.
Howabout. What money was wasted on the ideology of removing mandatory full position reporting for VFR? It saved a fortune. What money was wasted by giving operational control to the industry? What money was wasted on the ideology by closing down Mt Isa tower and the RFFS at all the secondary airports?
All a huge saving to our industry that would have been in a a far worse situation now if the changes and savings were not made!
And how come you are all gutless and anonymous. If you really believed in what you were saying at least one of you would post under your own name . There is nothing in the prune rules which prevent posts under a real name!
Bringing the staff from 7000 to 4000 clearly saved the aviation industry a fortune. Most of these people were paid by the aviation industry and that's where the saving went.
AsA has never been funded by the taxpayer- always by the industry.
Howabout. What money was wasted on the ideology of removing mandatory full position reporting for VFR? It saved a fortune. What money was wasted by giving operational control to the industry? What money was wasted on the ideology by closing down Mt Isa tower and the RFFS at all the secondary airports?
All a huge saving to our industry that would have been in a a far worse situation now if the changes and savings were not made!
And how come you are all gutless and anonymous. If you really believed in what you were saying at least one of you would post under your own name . There is nothing in the prune rules which prevent posts under a real name!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 23rd Mar 2016 at 08:40.
Bringing the staff from 7000 to 4000 clearly saved the aviation industry a fortune. Most of these people were paid by the aviation industry and that's where the saving went.
It all used to be paid for out of appropriations from consolidated revenue, for the common good. Governments used to think that aviation infrastructure and encouraging aviation were good ideas in a country that wanted to be at the cutting edge of technology and innovation. Pilots used to get AIP for free, because governments decided that spending taxpayer's money to provide AIP for free to the user was a good idea and beneficial to society as a whole.
It's just like public education. Governments have decided that a public education system is a good idea and beneficial to society as a whole, so governments appropriate money out of consolidated revenue to run a public education system. I don't mind that, even though I don't use the public education system (or the public hospital system, or Medicare or the PBS or some highway that was constructed at taxpayer's expense).
Now airports in Australia are just monopolies for rich mates to suck wealth out of a hapless public. The aviation industry in Australia is being regulated to death by the aviation 'safety' industry that feeds off the mystique of aviation.
"User pays" is just code for: You're politically weak, so just suck it up.
Not blaming you for those outcomes, Dick. But, crikey, the outcome could have been a lot different if the focus of your energies had been informed by even a superficial knowledge of how governments and politics work, beyond the 101 concept that politicians don't like the prospect of losing their cushy jobs.
But you are correct about RPT operations in G. It is surreally stupid (and so Australian) that RPT operations can occur in G (or is it F?...) without a 'safety' eyebrow being raised, but if one aircraft gets close to another in some other class of airspace in which that proximity is a 'no no', it's conniption time, even though it's OK for those aircraft to be that close in G (or is that F?).
And for the last time, can you get some young relative to show you how to turn the spellchecker on?
Even young Sunfish has had to self separate from Rex at YBHI. it makes me feel really grown up.
However on another occasion,, with rain showers and not great weather, I was glad that no one was arriving because I had my hands full.
Dixk is right. Not good weather, a gung ho RPT aircraft expecting a competent GA pilot who is found wanting and……..
However on another occasion,, with rain showers and not great weather, I was glad that no one was arriving because I had my hands full.
Dixk is right. Not good weather, a gung ho RPT aircraft expecting a competent GA pilot who is found wanting and……..
Dick calls G "dirt track". But how is E without surveillance any less dirt track? As the AIRPROX near Launy demonstrated it is no different. A clueless VFR can still kill you in exactly the same manner - there is no difference Yet he was happy to replace C where the IFR and VFR would have been separated with dirt track E.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First off, Dick, you are not wrong about everything.
As you rightly point out The Isa was a waste. A hangover from the days when Viscounts and DC-4s plied the BNE/DAR route and didn't have the range.
I also had no problems with the withdrawal of RFFS from the secondaries. If one ran the numbers on a cost/benefit basis, the outlay was not justifiable.
'Operational control' was a crock IMHO. Getting hassled by some fool in 'Operations,' trying to dictate to me, and who couldn't hold down a real job at the coalface, was a waste of my time when sh*ts were trumps. So a tick on that one as well.
As for mandatory reporting, I'll agree to disagree. My previous missive in respect of flight planning and being able to discern who was capable of giving position reports for the purposes of expedition, separation, and facilitating VFR to the maximum extent, sums up my position.
On balance, however, you made some pretty reasonable decisions in respect of the issues that you've raised. There was undoubted waste in the system.
But, but, you just can't seem to help yourself when it comes to language and the selective use of facts:
That is a 100% correct statement, but lends the impression (doesn't it?) that AsA, as a 'GBE,' has always run the system; when, in fact, 'user pays' is a relatively contemporary development in respect of our ATM system. And who thought that one up??? Thinking, thinking, thinking....
As LB rightly points out. And thank you LB; couldn't have put it better myself:
For the 'common good' in respect of where my taxes went, and I never had a problem with that as regards the funding of vital infrastructure and services. And then we got 'user pays,' and we are here where we are, where we are.
BTW, and neatly avoided: my original referred to what I regarded as the scandalous waste of taxpayer dollars (mine) on that recurring hobbyhorse - 11/11, Airspace 2000, Son of Airspace 2000, the G Airspace Trial and, woo-woo, NAS.
I saw it all, Dick. It was public money (probably in the millions) p155ed down the drain for no gain. Why? Because all of those failed initiatives were, IMHO, based on nothing more than opinion and 'I want.' No rigorous analyses in respect of cost/benefit nor risk - just opinion and 'I want.' Such an approach cuts no ice with me.
As you rightly point out The Isa was a waste. A hangover from the days when Viscounts and DC-4s plied the BNE/DAR route and didn't have the range.
I also had no problems with the withdrawal of RFFS from the secondaries. If one ran the numbers on a cost/benefit basis, the outlay was not justifiable.
'Operational control' was a crock IMHO. Getting hassled by some fool in 'Operations,' trying to dictate to me, and who couldn't hold down a real job at the coalface, was a waste of my time when sh*ts were trumps. So a tick on that one as well.
As for mandatory reporting, I'll agree to disagree. My previous missive in respect of flight planning and being able to discern who was capable of giving position reports for the purposes of expedition, separation, and facilitating VFR to the maximum extent, sums up my position.
On balance, however, you made some pretty reasonable decisions in respect of the issues that you've raised. There was undoubted waste in the system.
But, but, you just can't seem to help yourself when it comes to language and the selective use of facts:
AsA has never been funded by the taxpayer- always by the industry.
As LB rightly points out. And thank you LB; couldn't have put it better myself:
It all used to be paid for out of appropriations from consolidated revenue, for the common good. Governments used to think that aviation infrastructure and encouraging aviation were good ideas in a country that wanted to be at the cutting edge of technology and innovation. Pilots used to get AIP for free, because governments decided that spending taxpayer's money to provide AIP for free to the user was a good idea and beneficial to society as a whole.
It's just like public education. Governments have decided that a public education system is a good idea and beneficial to society as a whole, so governments appropriate money out of consolidated revenue to run a public education system. I don't mind that, even though I don't use the public education system (or the public hospital system, or Medicare or the PBS or some highway that was constructed at taxpayer's expense).
It's just like public education. Governments have decided that a public education system is a good idea and beneficial to society as a whole, so governments appropriate money out of consolidated revenue to run a public education system. I don't mind that, even though I don't use the public education system (or the public hospital system, or Medicare or the PBS or some highway that was constructed at taxpayer's expense).
BTW, and neatly avoided: my original referred to what I regarded as the scandalous waste of taxpayer dollars (mine) on that recurring hobbyhorse - 11/11, Airspace 2000, Son of Airspace 2000, the G Airspace Trial and, woo-woo, NAS.
I saw it all, Dick. It was public money (probably in the millions) p155ed down the drain for no gain. Why? Because all of those failed initiatives were, IMHO, based on nothing more than opinion and 'I want.' No rigorous analyses in respect of cost/benefit nor risk - just opinion and 'I want.' Such an approach cuts no ice with me.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balloon,
Stay away from comments about government funding.
When the 'Finance and Deregulation' department HAD deregulation which was before Abbott moved 'Dereg' to Prime Minister and Cabinet, there were:
the FMA ACT (which covered the department and the eighteen other departments in the Federal Government),
the CAC ACT (which covered CASA and other statutory agencies), and
GBEs (which covered AsA and others).
FIN wanted to move everything (more or less) to the GBE governance model which meant, along with other things, that some entities would e.g. require a Board and some would not.
That plan stalled with the Abbott move but the consolidation of the FMA and the CAC ACTs has gone ahead.
'Appropriations' which come out of the BUDGET fund the old CAC ACT and FMA ACT people but appropriations do not fund GBEs.
'Consolidated revenue' is what is left unspent at the end of the financial year and has absolutely nothing to do with 'appropriations'.
In fact, under the old (seeing as you are talking about 'remember when...') CAC ACT entities like CASA did not have to return the excess at all but in a somewhat ironical situation, they could not spend it either!! It basically had to sit in the bank.
If anyone other than a GBE wants to spend money, then they have to put together what is called a New Policy Proposal (NPP) and it is up to the relevant minister to decide if he or she will go into bat with the Finance Minister and ask for the cash.
For CASA or someone who has a surplus in the bank, the Board has to agree to return the money or not. The government cannot just 'take it'.
If CASA wanted to use the surplus in the bank for something, then before they can do THAT, they have to convince the Finance Minister to allow them to 'register a loss'; something that the LIBS were adamant under Abbott no CAC agency could do.
Might have changed now as it is Thursday, March 24th after all.
Government funding after WWII was mostly given to the Royal Aero Clubs (they were specifically mentioned) to promote aviation just as some RAAF pilots found themselves seconded to QANTAS before the war had ended (the legendary Captain Hughie Hemsworth, a fantastic pilot and one of the funniest people I have ever met was just such an example).
Back then, everyone knew the war would end soon and aviation had demonstrated it was going to be the future of transport.
Same reason the ICAO predates the UN (the Chicago Convention was signed in 1944) and why ICAO has a different structure to other UN agencies, 'specialist' or otherwise.
Funding to grow the GA world stopped long, long, long ago.
Stay away from comments about government funding.
When the 'Finance and Deregulation' department HAD deregulation which was before Abbott moved 'Dereg' to Prime Minister and Cabinet, there were:
the FMA ACT (which covered the department and the eighteen other departments in the Federal Government),
the CAC ACT (which covered CASA and other statutory agencies), and
GBEs (which covered AsA and others).
FIN wanted to move everything (more or less) to the GBE governance model which meant, along with other things, that some entities would e.g. require a Board and some would not.
That plan stalled with the Abbott move but the consolidation of the FMA and the CAC ACTs has gone ahead.
'Appropriations' which come out of the BUDGET fund the old CAC ACT and FMA ACT people but appropriations do not fund GBEs.
'Consolidated revenue' is what is left unspent at the end of the financial year and has absolutely nothing to do with 'appropriations'.
In fact, under the old (seeing as you are talking about 'remember when...') CAC ACT entities like CASA did not have to return the excess at all but in a somewhat ironical situation, they could not spend it either!! It basically had to sit in the bank.
If anyone other than a GBE wants to spend money, then they have to put together what is called a New Policy Proposal (NPP) and it is up to the relevant minister to decide if he or she will go into bat with the Finance Minister and ask for the cash.
For CASA or someone who has a surplus in the bank, the Board has to agree to return the money or not. The government cannot just 'take it'.
If CASA wanted to use the surplus in the bank for something, then before they can do THAT, they have to convince the Finance Minister to allow them to 'register a loss'; something that the LIBS were adamant under Abbott no CAC agency could do.
Might have changed now as it is Thursday, March 24th after all.
Government funding after WWII was mostly given to the Royal Aero Clubs (they were specifically mentioned) to promote aviation just as some RAAF pilots found themselves seconded to QANTAS before the war had ended (the legendary Captain Hughie Hemsworth, a fantastic pilot and one of the funniest people I have ever met was just such an example).
Back then, everyone knew the war would end soon and aviation had demonstrated it was going to be the future of transport.
Same reason the ICAO predates the UN (the Chicago Convention was signed in 1944) and why ICAO has a different structure to other UN agencies, 'specialist' or otherwise.
Funding to grow the GA world stopped long, long, long ago.
Ah the joys of undergraduate research. You'll probably scrape a Credit for that essay, AR.
You forgot to mention 'the vibe, Mabo and the Constitution. On the subject of the Constitution, I note section 81, which says:
And no: I don't need a lecture about whether statutory bodies corporate are part of the executive for the purposes of section 81.
You'll get to constitutional law later in you studies.
Hang in there. Only a few years to go!
You forgot to mention 'the vibe, Mabo and the Constitution. On the subject of the Constitution, I note section 81, which says:
81 Consolidated Revenue Fund
All revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by this Constitution.
All revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by this Constitution.
You'll get to constitutional law later in you studies.
Hang in there. Only a few years to go!
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 23rd Mar 2016 at 21:12.
Thread Starter
What's seems to have been forgotten is the fact that before the " user pays" was introduced by the Hawke government after the Henry Bosch recommendations there were very steep
" air nav" charges for all aircraft.
If I remember correctly my twin Comanche cost about $3 k a year and 182 about $1500.
Fly one of these aircraft today and if you don't keep it at expensive airports the AsA and CASA charges are far less.
Can anyone remember these charges? Anyone have a list of what they were?
" air nav" charges for all aircraft.
If I remember correctly my twin Comanche cost about $3 k a year and 182 about $1500.
Fly one of these aircraft today and if you don't keep it at expensive airports the AsA and CASA charges are far less.
Can anyone remember these charges? Anyone have a list of what they were?
Last edited by Dick Smith; 24th Mar 2016 at 09:08. Reason: Speln!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balloon,
You are no business man are you?
"Revenue" = what comes IN.
"Appropriation" = what goes OUT.
You have to have the 'going out' before you can get any of the 'coming in'.
In any event, CASA is not funded from 'consolidated revenue'.
I guess you have been a raving success with some other formula?
You are no business man are you?
"Revenue" = what comes IN.
"Appropriation" = what goes OUT.
You have to have the 'going out' before you can get any of the 'coming in'.
In any event, CASA is not funded from 'consolidated revenue'.
I guess you have been a raving success with some other formula?