CAGRS now established at BNK
This keeps bugging me. Two years ago Dick was bashing away at Radar coverage going into Ballina. He was more or less implying there should be a radar service down to the final fix for all IFR flights into Ballina. ADS-B got a guernsey as to it's perceived inadequacies. The new firey facility got a bit of a bashing...all in the background to this....Ballina is getting busier with RPT.
Now, the firies are ensconced...and Dick thinks things are sooooo quiet that they could be better employed keeping an eye on the circuit area and provide a Unicom service FOC....is this some ulterior motive to head off the need for a TWR and the resultant class D which will stop Dick migrations up and down the beautiful coastal beaches???
Now, the firies are ensconced...and Dick thinks things are sooooo quiet that they could be better employed keeping an eye on the circuit area and provide a Unicom service FOC....is this some ulterior motive to head off the need for a TWR and the resultant class D which will stop Dick migrations up and down the beautiful coastal beaches???
Biggles. Main advantage of a Unicom is that it can check that an aircraft radio is actually working correctly.
Also can give traffic if an aircraft taxis out onto the runway giving the announcements on the wrong frequency as Qantas did at Ayers Rock.
Also can give traffic if an aircraft taxis out onto the runway giving the announcements on the wrong frequency as Qantas did at Ayers Rock.
As a regular flyer into Ballina the unicom seems like a sensible solution for the RPT. Sounds like a good idea to train up the firies to give an extra service (not saying it will ever happen). Dont think there are too may professions where you would need to do as little as airport firey at Ballina
.= Not knocking them by the way, sure they are great fellas/ladies and well trained but its not exactly going to be flat strap all day. Great job if you can get it.
This whole thread reminds me of this: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
But cant people have a difference of opinion here and articulate point without taking cheap shots? Doesnt seem to happen when i talk with other pilots face to face. If someone has a different viewpoint so what, just argue politely why you disagree. Bringing up wealth-envy or off hand remarks from 20 years ago doesn't improve the argument. People get so worked up about any criticism of the current system you have to wonder why they are being so defensive. There are parts of our air traffic system that should be defended, but others are entitled to disagree.
I reckon a lot of it is just "knowledge signalling"..i know more about aviation that others. My last post i was commenting on something that was my job for almost 20 years and a couple of people started ranting how i didnt know the first thing about it. I dont know anything about being a 737 driver, so Im not going to jump on a related thread and tell them to harden up about rosters, you knew what you signed up for, the regs are fine, there is a robust fatigue management culture and we used to have it harder back in the day. Just because i know a little about it doesnt make me an expert. Maybe its the fatigue from pilots expressed in the thread above that makes them so angry here all the time.
Dick Smith and a few others fly in other countries a lot. Why is it so offensive to some people that he suggests other countries do some things better? I personally think Australian air traffic front line is great. But the regs they seem to have to operate under, in particular with military airspace (which I used to use..great swathes of airspace closed down so i could have a bit more room to maneuver close to base) is way to restrictive. Just an opinion.
I think the thread and its arguments are more about frustration with the current setup then the Unicom at Ballina. More just lack of trust in the system that now any change is seen as something bad. From wandering off to find a JP every 2 years to get a new photo signed for ASIC, bull**** notams that are so long and full of ass covering exercises such as a beacon inoperative 5nm away that few read them, licenses written in a code rather than just saying what it is..could go on and on. Most pilot are just tired of the bul**** stuff and want it simplified. That is not taking it back to "follow-me girls" (was there every such a thing?I remember follow me cars when flying into some USA airports but not girls) but just something to make it simpler. Just look how it took private companies like AVPLAN or OZRunways to simplify flight planning to what it should be by making a plugin to NAIPS while our bloated public service spend hundreds of millions re-writing regs that few pilot will ever read because every ass needs to be fully covered and blame sheeted back to the pilot who did not follow said regulations. if it werent for those companies we would still be logging in through Naips and converting English into code (I bet that comment gets some worked up But thank god for AVPLAN.OZrunways ) Probably being a bit harsh on CASA there, every now and then casa put out something we can understand.
Anyway im thankful that i fly for enjoyment now and not a living and those people that do it professionally good luck with it because it seems bloody grueling. But just because someone has to do it for a living doesn't mean their opinion is the only one that counts. Go easy on people who dont agree. Im amazed Dick Smith is even here commenting, let alone answering every nitpicky question that is thrown his way. Good to read everybody comments
.= Not knocking them by the way, sure they are great fellas/ladies and well trained but its not exactly going to be flat strap all day. Great job if you can get it. This whole thread reminds me of this: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
But cant people have a difference of opinion here and articulate point without taking cheap shots? Doesnt seem to happen when i talk with other pilots face to face. If someone has a different viewpoint so what, just argue politely why you disagree. Bringing up wealth-envy or off hand remarks from 20 years ago doesn't improve the argument. People get so worked up about any criticism of the current system you have to wonder why they are being so defensive. There are parts of our air traffic system that should be defended, but others are entitled to disagree.
I reckon a lot of it is just "knowledge signalling"..i know more about aviation that others. My last post i was commenting on something that was my job for almost 20 years and a couple of people started ranting how i didnt know the first thing about it. I dont know anything about being a 737 driver, so Im not going to jump on a related thread and tell them to harden up about rosters, you knew what you signed up for, the regs are fine, there is a robust fatigue management culture and we used to have it harder back in the day. Just because i know a little about it doesnt make me an expert. Maybe its the fatigue from pilots expressed in the thread above that makes them so angry here all the time.
Dick Smith and a few others fly in other countries a lot. Why is it so offensive to some people that he suggests other countries do some things better? I personally think Australian air traffic front line is great. But the regs they seem to have to operate under, in particular with military airspace (which I used to use..great swathes of airspace closed down so i could have a bit more room to maneuver close to base) is way to restrictive. Just an opinion.
I think the thread and its arguments are more about frustration with the current setup then the Unicom at Ballina. More just lack of trust in the system that now any change is seen as something bad. From wandering off to find a JP every 2 years to get a new photo signed for ASIC, bull**** notams that are so long and full of ass covering exercises such as a beacon inoperative 5nm away that few read them, licenses written in a code rather than just saying what it is..could go on and on. Most pilot are just tired of the bul**** stuff and want it simplified. That is not taking it back to "follow-me girls" (was there every such a thing?I remember follow me cars when flying into some USA airports but not girls) but just something to make it simpler. Just look how it took private companies like AVPLAN or OZRunways to simplify flight planning to what it should be by making a plugin to NAIPS while our bloated public service spend hundreds of millions re-writing regs that few pilot will ever read because every ass needs to be fully covered and blame sheeted back to the pilot who did not follow said regulations. if it werent for those companies we would still be logging in through Naips and converting English into code (I bet that comment gets some worked up
But thank god for AVPLAN.OZrunways ) Probably being a bit harsh on CASA there, every now and then casa put out something we can understand.Anyway im thankful that i fly for enjoyment now and not a living and those people that do it professionally good luck with it because it seems bloody grueling. But just because someone has to do it for a living doesn't mean their opinion is the only one that counts. Go easy on people who dont agree. Im amazed Dick Smith is even here commenting, let alone answering every nitpicky question that is thrown his way. Good to read everybody comments
Last edited by extralite; 25th Mar 2017 at 00:18.
It wasn't Avplan to thank for the Web interface for NAIPS.
Extralite, you have to ask...Ballina has reached the threshold of pax numbers to lock in a dedicated RFFS...it isn't too far away and a TWR/Class D service will also be locked in...so why harp on about a Unicom?
Just to add, Ballina is shifting way past 460,000 pax a year so the criteria to trigger the study to form a safety case to implement the procedures to ascertain if funds should be allocated for the study and recommendations to begin designing and building a tower should be discussed at the very next meeting....
Extralite, you have to ask...Ballina has reached the threshold of pax numbers to lock in a dedicated RFFS...it isn't too far away and a TWR/Class D service will also be locked in...so why harp on about a Unicom?
Just to add, Ballina is shifting way past 460,000 pax a year so the criteria to trigger the study to form a safety case to implement the procedures to ascertain if funds should be allocated for the study and recommendations to begin designing and building a tower should be discussed at the very next meeting....
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 25th Mar 2017 at 00:24.
A bit like extralite, I love PPrune because I learn what others are thinking, I can do without the personal abuse...but to turn to the subject.
Before Dick came along we had a Flight Service profession that had inherited legislation from the days when Australia was described by Flight International as the Police State of Aviation. Almost mandatory flight planning and traffic information everywhere. Dick brought a fresh pair of eyes and tried to turn Australia into a place where you could fly a plane just like you could drive a car or sail a boat. Just the regulation that was required to keep a reasonable standard of safety. Unfortunately he called it Affordable Safety because that is what it was, and has been caned for it ever since.
Dick brought MULTICOM and UNICOMS to Australia which is why we call them by their US names however there is no equivalent regulation to the FCC stuff quoted on this thread. CASA does regulate UNICOMS in a light way but as far as I am aware anyone can pop-up on the CTAF and offer a service. All they need (and this is the light regulation) is an Aviation Radio Operators Certificate (AROC) unless they are a pilot when the AROC privileges are included with the pilot licence. If you want to be a weather observer the BoM will train you and CASA will then approve you to pass the observation to pilots; this is the CAR120 approval. There are at the last count 22 UNICOMS advertised in ERSA, and AIP has some advice about what they can pass to pilots in the way of information. It is fine to say that anyone should be able to pass weather and traffic information but I suggest that people are thinking about a nice sunny sky and a couple of aircraft. Try thinking about a dirty rainy day, marginal VMC with scud-runners galore and a couple of pilots trying to make an instrument approach. Should someone at a UNICOM who is untrained take it upon themselves to give a weather observation or traffic information to a pilot who then got into some sort of dangerous situation, can you imagine the furore and where the buck would stop? At CASA, that's where, and quite rightly so because CASA is charged with oversight of our aviation system.
So due to political pressure (that's another word for you, Dick) CASA came up with the CA/GRS and some UNICOM trials to see how this level of service might work. I understand that there was universal condemnation of the UNICOM trials run by Airservices so CASA rejected the concept of regulated UNICOM but stuck with the CA/GRS. This is after all only a souped-up UNICOM where already trained radio operators are provided with a regulated minimum suite of equipment and certified to be able to provide weather and directed traffic information. In both the CA/GRS that currently exist they are ex FSOs or ex-ATCs because they are the only source we have of trained operators. (No - pilots are not similarly trained) I can only guess at what the cost of replicating ATC/FSO basic training would cost but I doubt that an off-the-street, which includes firemen and baggage handlers, CA/GRO could be trained for less that $30,000. Airport safety officers are in a slightly different category because many of them have BoM qualifications and could be CAR120 approved to pass weather, as by the way can any UNICOM operator - but not traffic. So it is possible to have this so-called no-cost service called a UNICOM but no-one seems to want to do it. On the other hand if you want to improve safety at an airport why not employ some retired ATCs or FSOs to provide traffic information?
It seems to me that we have is a good old-fashioned compromise that accepts that our system is different while trying to capture a good feature of a different system.
Before Dick came along we had a Flight Service profession that had inherited legislation from the days when Australia was described by Flight International as the Police State of Aviation. Almost mandatory flight planning and traffic information everywhere. Dick brought a fresh pair of eyes and tried to turn Australia into a place where you could fly a plane just like you could drive a car or sail a boat. Just the regulation that was required to keep a reasonable standard of safety. Unfortunately he called it Affordable Safety because that is what it was, and has been caned for it ever since.
Dick brought MULTICOM and UNICOMS to Australia which is why we call them by their US names however there is no equivalent regulation to the FCC stuff quoted on this thread. CASA does regulate UNICOMS in a light way but as far as I am aware anyone can pop-up on the CTAF and offer a service. All they need (and this is the light regulation) is an Aviation Radio Operators Certificate (AROC) unless they are a pilot when the AROC privileges are included with the pilot licence. If you want to be a weather observer the BoM will train you and CASA will then approve you to pass the observation to pilots; this is the CAR120 approval. There are at the last count 22 UNICOMS advertised in ERSA, and AIP has some advice about what they can pass to pilots in the way of information. It is fine to say that anyone should be able to pass weather and traffic information but I suggest that people are thinking about a nice sunny sky and a couple of aircraft. Try thinking about a dirty rainy day, marginal VMC with scud-runners galore and a couple of pilots trying to make an instrument approach. Should someone at a UNICOM who is untrained take it upon themselves to give a weather observation or traffic information to a pilot who then got into some sort of dangerous situation, can you imagine the furore and where the buck would stop? At CASA, that's where, and quite rightly so because CASA is charged with oversight of our aviation system.
So due to political pressure (that's another word for you, Dick) CASA came up with the CA/GRS and some UNICOM trials to see how this level of service might work. I understand that there was universal condemnation of the UNICOM trials run by Airservices so CASA rejected the concept of regulated UNICOM but stuck with the CA/GRS. This is after all only a souped-up UNICOM where already trained radio operators are provided with a regulated minimum suite of equipment and certified to be able to provide weather and directed traffic information. In both the CA/GRS that currently exist they are ex FSOs or ex-ATCs because they are the only source we have of trained operators. (No - pilots are not similarly trained) I can only guess at what the cost of replicating ATC/FSO basic training would cost but I doubt that an off-the-street, which includes firemen and baggage handlers, CA/GRO could be trained for less that $30,000. Airport safety officers are in a slightly different category because many of them have BoM qualifications and could be CAR120 approved to pass weather, as by the way can any UNICOM operator - but not traffic. So it is possible to have this so-called no-cost service called a UNICOM but no-one seems to want to do it. On the other hand if you want to improve safety at an airport why not employ some retired ATCs or FSOs to provide traffic information?
It seems to me that we have is a good old-fashioned compromise that accepts that our system is different while trying to capture a good feature of a different system.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: melbourne
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately Dick, if you dig into the FAA regs a little further you will see references to ATC's passing Traffic Information.
The FAA regs specifically state that a UNICOM can not carry out ANY of the functions of an ATC. Exceptions to this are noted in the Regs, as per you alluding to UNICOM's being able to pass a clearance.... this can ONLY be done when requested to be relayed by an ATC. And if it is like our third party communicators then it must be relayed verbatim so that the UNICOM is purely a relay station.
The FAA regs are vague in relation to UNICOM's passing traffic information but if I apply your logic, of using the phraseology example, to reinforce that a UNICOM can pass traffic, then I can use my logic of Traffic Information being passed by ATC's, which is mentioned in the FAA regs, to reinforce that UNICOM's cannot legally carry out an ATC function of providing traffic advice.
However, this is all academic as I know that some UNICOM's in the States do pass traffic. If you care to research you will find, however, numerous articles on the problems caused by untrained, but probably enthusiastic, UNICOM operators providing incorrect/inadequate information which has led to incidents occurring.
Just to let you know Dick, I do not work for CASA but have been a professional in the industry for over 38 years. Yes I have worked within the restrictive regime of regulation in this country and I have also seen some of the ATC/FS operations overseas.
I actually don't care if UNICOM's are allowed to pass traffic as long as, THEY HAVE ADEQUATE TRAINING, unfortunately Dick your idea of an untrained person providing traffic information is fraught with danger.
One question I would have is who is going to protect the UNICOM operator from litigation when they cock up and are deemed to have contributed to deaths from an accident! Do UNICOM operators understand their duty of care, and the potential risk's to them. Every ATC and, in the past, FSO fully understands their liability and work to ensure their duty of care is fully and properly acquitted every working day.
I know you will be thinking I am being alarmist and a regulatory flunky but Dick, have you ever heard of safety systems and risk mitigation. If you understand the James Reason model of accident/incident development, occurrence and chains of events leading to them then I think you might just consider that an "untrained" operator passing traffic could just be the final hole in the barrier to stop an accident occurring.
To be a CA/GRO you need to either hold or have held within the last 10 years an ATC or FSO Licence. That would pretty much count out most (if not all) ex-FSO's who didn't transfer to ATC 
I'd also reckon if anyone does qualify as an FSO, they wouldn't have been assessing and passing too much traffic in the last 10 years.
I'd also reckon if anyone does qualify as an FSO, they wouldn't have been assessing and passing too much traffic in the last 10 years.
Renegrade. Why wouldn't you just copy the US system where no prescibed training is required?
Also in the USA there has never been a situation on the FAA records where legal action has been taken against a Unicom operator.
And the US is a very litigious society.
But by being obsessed with insurance the original group running the CAGRO at Ayers Rock got charged $50 k PA for insurance. This was because the operators were trained,
Why wouldn't we just copy the best,
Also in the USA there has never been a situation on the FAA records where legal action has been taken against a Unicom operator.
And the US is a very litigious society.
But by being obsessed with insurance the original group running the CAGRO at Ayers Rock got charged $50 k PA for insurance. This was because the operators were trained,
Why wouldn't we just copy the best,
Strict liability has nothing to do with liability for common law negligence. Next.
Anyway, you've been told this many, many times Dick: If you want the US system, you have to import the entirety of the system.
Tell me this: When you fly around in the US, do you attract an avalanche of bills for landing fees, parking fees, terminal navigation charges and enroute charges?
You facilitated the biggest scam ever played on GA in Australia: "User Pays".
"User Pays" means the user pays four times: Income tax, GST, fuel excise and then all of the new stuff. Thanks for that.
Anyway, you've been told this many, many times Dick: If you want the US system, you have to import the entirety of the system.
Tell me this: When you fly around in the US, do you attract an avalanche of bills for landing fees, parking fees, terminal navigation charges and enroute charges?
You facilitated the biggest scam ever played on GA in Australia: "User Pays".
"User Pays" means the user pays four times: Income tax, GST, fuel excise and then all of the new stuff. Thanks for that.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Goolwa
Age: 59
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you think that that kind of "passing traffic" would be useful coming into an uncontrolled airfield?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be a CA/GRO you need to either hold or have held within the last 10 years an ATC or FSO Licence. That would pretty much count out most (if not all) ex-FSO's who didn't transfer to ATC
MOS Part 65 somewhere. Same as doctors I guess. Once trained and qualified, you are a doctor for life, though not necessarily current or fully competent
dexta
The fundamental thing is that CASR Part 139 prevents an aerodrome operator from operating an air/ground radio service unless it is a CAGRS. One of the functions of a CAGRS is to provide advice of relevant air traffic.
Under MOS 139 a UNICOM is not permitted to provide that advice. For specific trials of UNICOMs in the past, CASA had to grant exemptions to allow limited traffic advice.
With the specific example you quote, MOS 139 would suggest neither would be permitted by a UNICOM:
14.4.1.3 Participation in Unicom services by an aerodrome operator, whether for the purposes of a frequency confirmation system or otherwise, is to be limited to the exchange of radio messages concerning:
(a) confirmation of the CTAF/MBZ frequency selected by aircraft;
(b) general aerodrome weather reports;
(c) aerodrome information;
(d) estimated times of arrival and departure;
(e) passenger requirements;
(f) aircraft refuelling arrangements;
(g) maintenance and servicing of aircraft including the ordering of urgently required parts;
(h) unscheduled landings by aircraft.
(a) confirmation of the CTAF/MBZ frequency selected by aircraft;
(b) general aerodrome weather reports;
(c) aerodrome information;
(d) estimated times of arrival and departure;
(e) passenger requirements;
(f) aircraft refuelling arrangements;
(g) maintenance and servicing of aircraft including the ordering of urgently required parts;
(h) unscheduled landings by aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: melbourne
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re the licensing requirement for CAGRO. I believevit says a"current" licence within the last ten years. To be current it must have a Class 3 medical attached. Anyone not using the licence is not going to go to the trouble of doing medicals.
Re Part 139 and who can operate a UNICOM and it's functions.... Watch this space before the end of the year! 😉
Re Part 139 and who can operate a UNICOM and it's functions.... Watch this space before the end of the year! 😉
Thanks Buckshot. I never knew that. I had to hand my licence over to the OIC when I took VR, I've always thought it was cancelled since then. I guess somewhere in the catacombs of AsA or CASA they have a record of it stamped into a clay tablet if I ever wanted to recover the Licence No. etc.
Its a pity the MOS 65 contains a typo (?) that repeats the ATC duration in the FS section:
Chapter 6 - ATC
6.1.2.1 An Air Traffic Controller Licence shall remain valid for the lifetime of the holder, provided the conditions specified in CASR Part 65 continue to be met, unless the licence is suspended or cancelled by CASA.
Chapter 11 - Flight Service
11.1.2.1 An Air Traffic Controller Licence shall remain valid for the lifetime of the holder, provided the conditions specified in CASR Part 65 continue to be met, unless the licence is suspended or cancelled by CASA.
Probably no one has ever noticed or cared
From MOS 139 (v1.14 2017):
Therefore, applicants for the issue of a CA/GRO Certificate must hold, or have held within the last ten years, an ICAO recognised Air Traffic Controller licence or an Australian Flight Service Officer licence.
Doesn't say it has to have been current.
There was this https://www.casa.gov.au/file/421/dow...token=xdXflipk back in 2006 to widen the net, but I'm guessing it went nowhere as the current MOS hasn't changed. The rational for the NPC was that it was getting harder to find eligible candidates, so perhaps the "current" is implied/preferred, but it is not stated.
MOS 65 states that "provided the conditions specified in CASR Part 65 continue to be met", which seems to be holding a rating and carrying out the functions. A Class 3 medical is a pre-requisite for initial granting of the licence, and must be maintained while exercising it. Any ratings/endorsements or qualifications granted by the ATS provider are invalid when the holder ceases employment with the ATS provider. CASA can then use non proficiency or non medical currency to suspend or cancel the licence, but must notify the holder in writing after making them jump through some hoops. I have never been formally notified my licence has been cancelled.
Maybe the OIC threw it in his bin after I left his office, which is probably about as official as it will ever get.
Its a pity the MOS 65 contains a typo (?) that repeats the ATC duration in the FS section:
Chapter 6 - ATC
6.1.2.1 An Air Traffic Controller Licence shall remain valid for the lifetime of the holder, provided the conditions specified in CASR Part 65 continue to be met, unless the licence is suspended or cancelled by CASA.
Chapter 11 - Flight Service
11.1.2.1 An Air Traffic Controller Licence shall remain valid for the lifetime of the holder, provided the conditions specified in CASR Part 65 continue to be met, unless the licence is suspended or cancelled by CASA.
Probably no one has ever noticed or cared
From MOS 139 (v1.14 2017):
Therefore, applicants for the issue of a CA/GRO Certificate must hold, or have held within the last ten years, an ICAO recognised Air Traffic Controller licence or an Australian Flight Service Officer licence.
Doesn't say it has to have been current.
There was this https://www.casa.gov.au/file/421/dow...token=xdXflipk back in 2006 to widen the net, but I'm guessing it went nowhere as the current MOS hasn't changed. The rational for the NPC was that it was getting harder to find eligible candidates, so perhaps the "current" is implied/preferred, but it is not stated.
MOS 65 states that "provided the conditions specified in CASR Part 65 continue to be met", which seems to be holding a rating and carrying out the functions. A Class 3 medical is a pre-requisite for initial granting of the licence, and must be maintained while exercising it. Any ratings/endorsements or qualifications granted by the ATS provider are invalid when the holder ceases employment with the ATS provider. CASA can then use non proficiency or non medical currency to suspend or cancel the licence, but must notify the holder in writing after making them jump through some hoops. I have never been formally notified my licence has been cancelled.
Maybe the OIC threw it in his bin after I left his office, which is probably about as official as it will ever get.
Last edited by Traffic_Is_Er_Was; 26th Mar 2017 at 11:46.
Hey Mr 'T',
The last 'current' FSO's were in Perth FSC, closed Dec 2000 - although a dedicated few stayed on to man / person the International Network until the Cocos freqs were transferred to BN, for a further few months or so.
Cheers
The last 'current' FSO's were in Perth FSC, closed Dec 2000 - although a dedicated few stayed on to man / person the International Network until the Cocos freqs were transferred to BN, for a further few months or so.
Cheers
Lead ballooon. I can see why you post your defamatory comments anonymously.
The Labor government introduced user pays before I had any involvement . I will post information that clearly shows my objections at the time.
I was then involved in reducing staff from 7000 to 3500 to reduce costs to the industry.
Stick to the truth .
The Labor government introduced user pays before I had any involvement . I will post information that clearly shows my objections at the time.
I was then involved in reducing staff from 7000 to 3500 to reduce costs to the industry.
Stick to the truth .
Dick, what is the point in having untrained/unqualified people on the radio? Even if you aren't paying them, it's still a waste.
Just because you say something is the best, doesn't make it so.
You aren't in the tuna business are you, or mates with John West?
Just because you say something is the best, doesn't make it so.
You aren't in the tuna business are you, or mates with John West?
Lead ballooon. I can see why you post your defamatory comments anonymously.
The Labor government introduced user pays before I had any involvement . I will post information that clearly shows my objections at the time.
I was then involved in reducing staff from 7000 to 3500 to reduce costs to the industry.
Stick to the truth .
The Labor government introduced user pays before I had any involvement . I will post information that clearly shows my objections at the time.
I was then involved in reducing staff from 7000 to 3500 to reduce costs to the industry.
Stick to the truth .
I thought you and Boyd Munro championed "pay our way, have our say". Is my memory not serving me correctly?
Dick, what is the point in having untrained/unqualified people on the radio? Even if you aren't paying them, it's still a waste.
On one occasion I had to get on the radio to inform a pilot that was about to enter the runway that a B717 was on final for. Reason being, numbnut about to enter couldn't have been bothered to read NOTAMs advising of the CTAF change. At the time I had more than 10 years flying experience under my belt. I would suggest UNICOM operator with a freshly minted ROCP might not have the same level of situational awareness.
