GA damage started by the National Party
Thread Starter
GA damage started by the National Party
I recently found this cutting from the Namoi Valley Independent from Thursday 5 October 2000. Here is a link.
Particularly note the quotes from John Anderson, who at the time was the Deputy Prime Minister, leader of the National Party and Minister for Transport.
It is interesting where he states it is not worth having a meeting with me because:
Yes, back in 2000, now 16 years ago, many dopes in the industry accused me of introducing affordable safety – can you imagine unaffordable safety? They constantly resisted my campaign to remove all unnecessary costs. We are now reaping the results.
We are now suffering the damage and it is all so unnecessary – and it was industry supported damage.
Of course John Anderson’s ‘cargo cult’ statements would have come straight from the Department. The key issue now is whether Mr Chester’s views are the same.
Particularly note the quotes from John Anderson, who at the time was the Deputy Prime Minister, leader of the National Party and Minister for Transport.
“I don’t think that you should ever regard aviation safety as what is affordable. Safety is something which has the highest priority - it is not a question of cost.”
“His views are well known and are generally not accepted.”
We are now suffering the damage and it is all so unnecessary – and it was industry supported damage.
Of course John Anderson’s ‘cargo cult’ statements would have come straight from the Department. The key issue now is whether Mr Chester’s views are the same.
Bit of background...
Dick Smith's $19305 article
....then in 2002.
NAS vs LLAMP Read through to post 41...same guy is really pissed off with Dick that he teams Smith up with Forsyth.
Dick Smith's $19305 article
....then in 2002.
NAS vs LLAMP Read through to post 41...same guy is really pissed off with Dick that he teams Smith up with Forsyth.
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 30th Aug 2016 at 05:31.
Much as I love to disagree with RHS, he is 100% correcton this.
Col Pay referred to John Anderson as the worst Aviation Minister since (was it Clem someone? Well before my time).
Of course, Col never lived to see Anthony Albanese or Warren Truss as Transport Minister.
The NSW Nats are totally uninterested in shifting the balance in Regional Airlines in NSW - but I am sure that is unrelated to disgraced ex Nats Leader John Sharp being a director.
Ditto Mark Vaile at Virgin.
...but the thing I like about Australia is that we're not corrupt
Col Pay referred to John Anderson as the worst Aviation Minister since (was it Clem someone? Well before my time).
Of course, Col never lived to see Anthony Albanese or Warren Truss as Transport Minister.
The NSW Nats are totally uninterested in shifting the balance in Regional Airlines in NSW - but I am sure that is unrelated to disgraced ex Nats Leader John Sharp being a director.
Ditto Mark Vaile at Virgin.
...but the thing I like about Australia is that we're not corrupt
Thread Starter
It is important for one of our industry leaders to contact Minister Chester and ask him if he agrees with the statement:
If he does believe in John Anderson’s statement – it could even be a secret policy of the National Party for all I know – I once again advise everyone to get out of aviation. As I have said, the money you will lose now by getting out will be far less than what you will lose if you get out in two or three years.
“I don’t think that you should ever regard aviation safety as what is affordable. Safety is something which has the highest priority - it is not a question of cost.”
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
Anderson had the benefit of flying in a cocoon of safety paid for by the taxpayer. Unaffordable safety by any measure unless the public purse is keeping his piece of airspace free of all conflict. Other than The Windsor's or visiting dignitary's I can't think of anybody deserving this amount of safety. Remember this person gave us public funded airport upgrades which made them all no-go areas unless we paid for a red "exemption" card.
A can of red paint would have designated a security zone as easily as this unaffordable safety.
A can of red paint would have designated a security zone as easily as this unaffordable safety.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Country NSW
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick I could not agree more. If you see my posts on the topic of Skidmore resigning you will know what I mean. We may not see eye to eye on everything but by golly you have been right! Have fun!
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
I heard him say in question time today that the government are building new airports. He didn't say when or where and Albanese wasn't heard because of constant interjections. I thought the claim lacked merit, but that's probably because I don't pay attention to used car salesmen.
Folks,
The airspace planning for Sydney West is coming along fine, and is right up to AirnoService's usual standards.
The zone is being designed for aircraft that will never exist, doing a maneuver that will never happen there --- resulting in no IFR approaches for Bankstown or Camden, and severe restrictions on both.
By this I mean Cat E aircraft and circling!! There is no such thing as a Cat E civil aircraft, and never will be!!
And I see no mention of noise impact of circling in the EIS.
If they designed the zone just for "straight-in" approaches, there would be little impact on Bankstown or Camden and that wouldn't be fair would it, as all new developments have to shaft GA one way or another, that's the policy.
Tootle pip!!
The airspace planning for Sydney West is coming along fine, and is right up to AirnoService's usual standards.
The zone is being designed for aircraft that will never exist, doing a maneuver that will never happen there --- resulting in no IFR approaches for Bankstown or Camden, and severe restrictions on both.
By this I mean Cat E aircraft and circling!! There is no such thing as a Cat E civil aircraft, and never will be!!
And I see no mention of noise impact of circling in the EIS.
If they designed the zone just for "straight-in" approaches, there would be little impact on Bankstown or Camden and that wouldn't be fair would it, as all new developments have to shaft GA one way or another, that's the policy.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: canberra
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daisy0138
Dick Smiths thread Quotes Minister Anderson suggesting safety has priority over cost .Airservices website says that animated weather images will not be part of adsb broadcasts because they can not interest an outside party to pay for it
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you believe that safety has priority over cost you are as silly as the people who voted Anderson into office.
Dick started the whole stinking cheese rolling with 'affordable safety'...
Dick started the whole stinking cheese rolling with 'affordable safety'...
Affordable safety is all around us, every day, Hempy. It's not one of Dick's 'pet projects'. It's a fact of life. That's why there's no ILS at Mildura. That's why there are no CATIIIC approaches in Australia.
Dick has merely been asserting an objective truth: If CASA (including AVMED) are going to just keep on making more and more rules and imposing more and more restrictions in response to any and every risk, no matter its objective and comparitive probabilities and the costs of compliance, all they are doing is continuing to drive people and investment away from the industry and stultifying it.
Dick has merely been asserting an objective truth: If CASA (including AVMED) are going to just keep on making more and more rules and imposing more and more restrictions in response to any and every risk, no matter its objective and comparitive probabilities and the costs of compliance, all they are doing is continuing to drive people and investment away from the industry and stultifying it.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 7th Oct 2016 at 06:03. Reason: To make a correction as a consequence of CD's post, and a typo
LB, Melbourne has a CAT IIIB ILS onto Runway 16. But that, and its 24 hour ops is about all that I can say is good about Melbourne Airport.