Who at Airservices was responsible for undermining the Government NAS decision?
Thread Starter
Who at Airservices was responsible for undermining the Government NAS decision?
I have started a new thread on this issue as it is important.
Some will remember the Aviation Reform Group (ARG) that was set up by John Anderson. One if its high priorities was the development and implementation of airspace reform.
The Aviation Reform Group consisted of Chairman Ken Matthews (Secretary of the Department), John Forsyth (Chairman of Airservices), Ted Anson (Chairman of CASA), Air Marshal Angus Houston, and Dick Smith. The Executive Director was Mike Smith, and the Deputy Executive Director was Group Captain Warrick Paddon of the Royal Australian Air Force.
The National Airspace System (NAS) document was prepared by the various project officers and approved by the Aviation Reform Group. On page 8, it stated very clearly:
The new airspace system became effective on 27 November 2003, and all charts were printed before this time by Airservices, without showing the frequency boundaries – as per the policy, and internationally proven procedures. About three months later, Airservices printed a special chart with the frequency boundaries, and posted it free of charge to each pilot in Australia. The cost must have been staggering.
Of course, it goes without saying it completely undermined the decision of the ARG and the NAS Implementation Group. Amazingly, no education material at all was sent with the chart – but it was a clear message that there was a major change in the policy.
I spoke to the Director of Aviation Safety at CASA at the time, Bruce Byron, and he was absolutely horrified. He said:
As there were no safety incidents reported at the time that were linked to the removal of frequency boundaries, can someone advise who made the decision to print the charts? I have always thought it would have been driven by people in the “iron ring” with concrete minds in CASA, putting pressure on Airservices secretly. Who would have authorised the expenditure to do this?
It certainly stuffed up the whole implementation of NAS, and the education program which was part of the implementation. It is the prime reason why CASA, a number of years ago, demanded that pilots operating at aerodromes not marked on charts use the area ATC frequency when taxiing or in the circuit area. It is also the prime reason they are now proposing gigantic 40 mile across, 5000’ high CTAFs – unlike anything else in the world.
Surely now, some 14 years later, someone must be able to spill the beans on who authorised the expenditure and sending out the charts without any educational material, so the whole of the NAS program was undermined. Surely it must come out one day. I would love to know the true story so I can put it in my memoirs.
Some will remember the Aviation Reform Group (ARG) that was set up by John Anderson. One if its high priorities was the development and implementation of airspace reform.
The Aviation Reform Group consisted of Chairman Ken Matthews (Secretary of the Department), John Forsyth (Chairman of Airservices), Ted Anson (Chairman of CASA), Air Marshal Angus Houston, and Dick Smith. The Executive Director was Mike Smith, and the Deputy Executive Director was Group Captain Warrick Paddon of the Royal Australian Air Force.
The National Airspace System (NAS) document was prepared by the various project officers and approved by the Aviation Reform Group. On page 8, it stated very clearly:
“… a major change is that … all frequency boundary information has been removed from the charts.”
Of course, it goes without saying it completely undermined the decision of the ARG and the NAS Implementation Group. Amazingly, no education material at all was sent with the chart – but it was a clear message that there was a major change in the policy.
I spoke to the Director of Aviation Safety at CASA at the time, Bruce Byron, and he was absolutely horrified. He said:
“Dick, I heard talk of Airservices doing a chart. I told them not to do a chart unless there was an adequate education program beforehand of how the wound-back system would work.”
It certainly stuffed up the whole implementation of NAS, and the education program which was part of the implementation. It is the prime reason why CASA, a number of years ago, demanded that pilots operating at aerodromes not marked on charts use the area ATC frequency when taxiing or in the circuit area. It is also the prime reason they are now proposing gigantic 40 mile across, 5000’ high CTAFs – unlike anything else in the world.
Surely now, some 14 years later, someone must be able to spill the beans on who authorised the expenditure and sending out the charts without any educational material, so the whole of the NAS program was undermined. Surely it must come out one day. I would love to know the true story so I can put it in my memoirs.
Why would education have been required? It's not like pilots had suddenly forgotten what to do with the charts they'd been using only three months earlier.
Nobody cares but you.
Nobody cares but you.
Thread Starter
Le ping. I can see why you are not game to stand behind your posts with your honest real name.
Possibly the RAPAC members care about the staggering amount of time they have had to waste over the CASA class G issue. Meeting after meeting Letter after letter. Expensive travel costs .
Then what about the millions of industry and taxpayer money CASA has spent on the issue
All caused because CASA said that non marked aerodrome communication must be on the ATC frequency. Only possible because of the reversal.
What education could have been required? Pull the other one. The wind back issue created by this map has not been resolved even today. RAPACs don’t agree with 40 mile ctafs,
Ping. Were you behind this incredibly expensive stuff up?
Possibly the RAPAC members care about the staggering amount of time they have had to waste over the CASA class G issue. Meeting after meeting Letter after letter. Expensive travel costs .
Then what about the millions of industry and taxpayer money CASA has spent on the issue
All caused because CASA said that non marked aerodrome communication must be on the ATC frequency. Only possible because of the reversal.
What education could have been required? Pull the other one. The wind back issue created by this map has not been resolved even today. RAPACs don’t agree with 40 mile ctafs,
Ping. Were you behind this incredibly expensive stuff up?
Dick,
Better still, ask who was responsible for the disgraceful changes to the original Airspace Act. If that hadn't been gutted, and all reference to risk management, defined risks, cost/benefit analysis, and the US NSA being the model for Australia to follow had not been removed, indeed all reference to objective standards (under Albo??) this nonsense (and much else) in matters airspace would not have been possible.
Indeed, if I remember correctly, a version of "promote and foster Australian aviation" was even in there somewhere.
Tootle pip!!
Better still, ask who was responsible for the disgraceful changes to the original Airspace Act. If that hadn't been gutted, and all reference to risk management, defined risks, cost/benefit analysis, and the US NSA being the model for Australia to follow had not been removed, indeed all reference to objective standards (under Albo??) this nonsense (and much else) in matters airspace would not have been possible.
Indeed, if I remember correctly, a version of "promote and foster Australian aviation" was even in there somewhere.
Tootle pip!!
Dick, the chart was just a chart. It didn't enable anything and didn't require education material to use. "Appropriate ATC frequency" can be defined however you want, be it as shown by FIA boundaries on a chart or by using "biscuits" to locate the closet VHF outlet on a chart.
As I've said every time you've trotted out the "honest real name", I'm just a controller with no particular influence on aviation matters. Knowing my name would offer you no extra insight.
Yes, it was me.
As I've said every time you've trotted out the "honest real name", I'm just a controller with no particular influence on aviation matters. Knowing my name would offer you no extra insight.
Yes, it was me.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, once again you are resorting to personal attacks. Are you familiar with the phrase “ad hominem?”
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person") short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
You have already had one go at me today now it’s le Pingouin.
Play the ball, not the man.
Don Gorrie.
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person") short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
You have already had one go at me today now it’s le Pingouin.
Play the ball, not the man.
Don Gorrie.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Le ping. I can see why you are not game to stand behind your posts with your honest real name.
Presumably this flurry of activity from Dick and his sidekick LeadSled is to ruffle a few feathers and gain the attention of a certain Baaaarnaby. Caaaaarpe Diem and all that!
Maybe we should stop feeding the trolls.
Maybe we should stop feeding the trolls.
You do realise that even without the frequency boundaries on the chart that CASA still could have made the "broadcast on area" rule, don't you?
I'd like to know who buggered up the working system we had up until the 90's
??
Yep, maybe Airservices has saved a few bucks by sacking staff, however, perhaps they've also managed to spend that money elsewhere over the years.
Besides the money issue, is aviation in Australia safer since Dick took a torch to it?
I used to work within the bureaucracy and I used to fly a lot. Even with my "inside" knowledge, I find it difficult now to keep up with the rule and airspace changes. It's a lot easier to just stay on the ground.
The old "50s system", as Dick likes to call it, was indeed simple, intuitive and obviously safe. Can we say the same about today's environment?
??
Yep, maybe Airservices has saved a few bucks by sacking staff, however, perhaps they've also managed to spend that money elsewhere over the years.
Besides the money issue, is aviation in Australia safer since Dick took a torch to it?
I used to work within the bureaucracy and I used to fly a lot. Even with my "inside" knowledge, I find it difficult now to keep up with the rule and airspace changes. It's a lot easier to just stay on the ground.
The old "50s system", as Dick likes to call it, was indeed simple, intuitive and obviously safe. Can we say the same about today's environment?
I have started a new thread on this issue as it is important.
...can someone advise who made the decision to print the charts?
Surely now, some 14 years later, someone must be able to spill the beans on who authorised the expenditure and sending out the charts without any educational material, so the whole of the NAS program was undermined. Surely it must come out one day. I would love to know the true story so I can put it in my memoirs.
...can someone advise who made the decision to print the charts?
Surely now, some 14 years later, someone must be able to spill the beans on who authorised the expenditure and sending out the charts without any educational material, so the whole of the NAS program was undermined. Surely it must come out one day. I would love to know the true story so I can put it in my memoirs.
Why the f#ck keep changing the bloody airspace and the damn rules? I have seen countless attempts since 1986 and it was all working ok back then. Why keep changing it? Pilots now have to be bloody lawyers to work this ****e out now. All I want to do is fly aeroplanes!
Yes. It used to be easy.
Controlled Airspace (CTA) and Outside Controlled Airspace (OCTA).
Control zones, GAAP zones and uncontrolled airports.
FULLSAR if you want it, and at larger aerodromes a nice Air Traffic Officer to check your plan, give you the right NOTAMs and see you on your way.
Then some people wanted to fly in CTA without clearance if they were VFR, and not worry about planning if they were OCTA.
So we got:
Class A, and Class G
and Class C and Class D and CTAFs and MTAFs - a bunch of letters that weren't intuitive and no one to help and AVFAX for NOTAMs so that no one knew what they were doing or who they were supposed to talk to, or how much to plan or where - unless they were in the industry (and even then, only in the bit of sky they were flying in).
... and it all got so political and difficult that private pilots left the industry in droves and bought a boat instead.
Controlled Airspace (CTA) and Outside Controlled Airspace (OCTA).
Control zones, GAAP zones and uncontrolled airports.
FULLSAR if you want it, and at larger aerodromes a nice Air Traffic Officer to check your plan, give you the right NOTAMs and see you on your way.
Then some people wanted to fly in CTA without clearance if they were VFR, and not worry about planning if they were OCTA.
So we got:
Class A, and Class G
and Class C and Class D and CTAFs and MTAFs - a bunch of letters that weren't intuitive and no one to help and AVFAX for NOTAMs so that no one knew what they were doing or who they were supposed to talk to, or how much to plan or where - unless they were in the industry (and even then, only in the bit of sky they were flying in).
... and it all got so political and difficult that private pilots left the industry in droves and bought a boat instead.
Thread Starter
In 1986 all aircraft flying Octa in full radar coverage in the J curve were prohibited by the regulations from talking directly to the person with the radar screen. It was the prime reason the pilot of MDX was not told that he was heading for over 20 minutes at right angles to the correct path . 6 dead!
That was my main driver for the changes.
Now all IFR pilots in all radar covered airspace communicate directly to the person with the radar screen and VFR pilots can request a radar service .
I am proud of these changes and the $1.6 billion saved by the industry since then.
We now need to finish the transition to a modern airspace system.
That was my main driver for the changes.
Now all IFR pilots in all radar covered airspace communicate directly to the person with the radar screen and VFR pilots can request a radar service .
I am proud of these changes and the $1.6 billion saved by the industry since then.
We now need to finish the transition to a modern airspace system.
I understand neither your objection to pilots having a chart so that they are able to see what frequency they should be on, nor making calls on Area at unmarked aerodromes, by the way.
I see the sense in both of those.
I see the sense in both of those.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand neither your objection to pilots having a chart so that they are able to see what frequency they should be on, nor making calls on Area at unmarked aerodromes, by the way.
The boundaries do not show coverage which in many locations it is not on the frequency for the area you are in, especially at low level. There is presently no coverage charts for 3000ft for example - only 5 and 10k.
Making calls on the Area Frequency is fine, but the aim is to have all low level traffic on the same frequency. With the existing boundaries there is a choice in some areas of three frequencies to use. Introducing the MULTICOM puts all the low level traffic on the same frequency. If you are low level then there is the chance that you are always "in the vicinity" of somebodies airfield. Having a common freq for low level is simple and makes sense.
And the majority of the responses to the DP supported the MULTICOM proposal.
Yes - but if you're bowling along above the MILTICOM level - IFR traffic get directed frequency transfers from ATC?
And VFR just hope that they are listening on the appropriate, or just don't bother listening to anything? And that hemispherical separation and a big sky will keep them safe?
And if you want to enter controlled airspace, or upgrade to IFR with plan details - you just call the nearest transmitter and spend some time being shuffled to the correct frequency rather than being able to determine it yourself?
And VFR just hope that they are listening on the appropriate, or just don't bother listening to anything? And that hemispherical separation and a big sky will keep them safe?
And if you want to enter controlled airspace, or upgrade to IFR with plan details - you just call the nearest transmitter and spend some time being shuffled to the correct frequency rather than being able to determine it yourself?