Video to Airservices Chairman John Weber
Thread Starter
Video to Airservices Chairman John Weber
I have recently sent this video to Airservices.
I believe it is self-explanatory.
Also on the dicksmithaviation.com.au website is the letter that I sent to John Weber. He didn’t even lift up the phone and talk to me about the serious claims I had made. Here is a link.
Also on the dicksmithaviation.com.au website is the letter that I sent to John Weber. He didn’t even lift up the phone and talk to me about the serious claims I had made. Here is a link.
And who is actually going to pay for these ATC services Dick?
You regularly tell us that GA is dead and that it’s so expensive etc, but given the size of the industry, the increasing of services is going to cost more money and I think it’s pretty clear the government is t going to fund it. The airlines have got no cash either. So are we all meant to pay for it?
No doubt the Mangalore and Coffs accidents were tragic, but the ATSB haven’t even released their final reports yet. Don’t you think the victims and those others involved are worthy of letting formalities taking their natural course rather than pre-emptying the outcomes before calling for someone’s head?
You regularly tell us that GA is dead and that it’s so expensive etc, but given the size of the industry, the increasing of services is going to cost more money and I think it’s pretty clear the government is t going to fund it. The airlines have got no cash either. So are we all meant to pay for it?
No doubt the Mangalore and Coffs accidents were tragic, but the ATSB haven’t even released their final reports yet. Don’t you think the victims and those others involved are worthy of letting formalities taking their natural course rather than pre-emptying the outcomes before calling for someone’s head?
Flying Higher, as evidenced by the Norfolk Island ditching report and others since, like the disgraceful community flights matter, as well as the MOU between CASA and ATSB, I doubt whether a full, frank, unbiased, informed, accurate and penetrating report by the ATSB is even possible today. This is especially so in these two matters since they potentially could involve observations, nay criticism, of the actions of other government or semi government agencies.
In three years I would therefore expect pilots and operators to be blamed as well as one or two strictly procedural observations on AsA and perhaps CASA .........which AsA and/or CASA will happily announce have already been corrected by then. I think the days of strict accountability being applied to government, as opposed to poor pilots, are long gone.
‘To put that another way, why wait? We already know that ATSB will flub it’s responsibilities. The Government is not interested in aviation in general, let alone small aircraft. We are just “air pollution “ to them.
Dick is right, no change is possible until there is a big smoking hole in the ground, followed by a royal commission and perhaps not even then.
In three years I would therefore expect pilots and operators to be blamed as well as one or two strictly procedural observations on AsA and perhaps CASA .........which AsA and/or CASA will happily announce have already been corrected by then. I think the days of strict accountability being applied to government, as opposed to poor pilots, are long gone.
‘To put that another way, why wait? We already know that ATSB will flub it’s responsibilities. The Government is not interested in aviation in general, let alone small aircraft. We are just “air pollution “ to them.
Dick is right, no change is possible until there is a big smoking hole in the ground, followed by a royal commission and perhaps not even then.
Thread Starter
Flying Higher
It is interesting that no costing has ever been released on what E to the terminal area at busy airports would cost.
If the USA and Canada can easily afford this you would wonder why we can’t !
A number of ATCs have told me that giving traffic information is likely to be more time consuming than just giving a simple control instruction.
I also understood that with both CASA and AsA the legislation states that “ safety is the most important consideration “
Clearly not so in this case.
It is interesting that no costing has ever been released on what E to the terminal area at busy airports would cost.
If the USA and Canada can easily afford this you would wonder why we can’t !
A number of ATCs have told me that giving traffic information is likely to be more time consuming than just giving a simple control instruction.
I also understood that with both CASA and AsA the legislation states that “ safety is the most important consideration “
Clearly not so in this case.
Thread Starter
VH Not tinkering. My Board was responsible for the AMATS changes many years ago. The stated plan was to have low level E.
Ever since I have attempted to finalise the changes.
Will definitely happen when we have an Airline crash at a place like Ballina
Do yo think 15 deaths acceptable?
And crash or crash through is the opposite to my practice. I support copying proven safe systems.
Ever since I have attempted to finalise the changes.
Will definitely happen when we have an Airline crash at a place like Ballina
Do yo think 15 deaths acceptable?
And crash or crash through is the opposite to my practice. I support copying proven safe systems.
Smith was not on the CAA Board when the first ICAO classifications were introduced.His interference caused the Board to stop AMATS implementation weeks before the start date.
safety is the most important consideration
Thread Starter
Vag277, you seem to be rewriting history here. I was appointed to the CAA Board in July 1988 then appointed as the Chairman for two years from 20 February 1990, finishing my term on 19 February 1992.
I worked on airspace the whole time I was on the Board, including as Chairman. The first stage of AMATS, including the ICAO cruising levels and the removal of full position reporting, came in on 12 December 1991. In June 1993, IFR to IFR separation was supposed to be provided in low level airspace (that is, Class E) but it never happened.
Yes, I did stop the changed AMATS, when Buck Brooksbank decided to remove the directed traffic service from Class G airspace and not put in any low level Class E. From that day, I have been attempting to get back to the original AMATS plan – which was following the most proven airspace system in the world.
Here is a link to the yellow booklet which explains the dates. Note that on 12 December 1991, “Full reporting will no longer be available to VFR flights.” It also created CTAFs for the first time.
Daringly, it stated, “Where suitable communication facilities exist, clearance will be passed direct to pilots by ATC.” Wow! What an amazing change!
Note that this was the start of the use of ICAO airspace classifications.
I think I was somehow a little involved.
I worked on airspace the whole time I was on the Board, including as Chairman. The first stage of AMATS, including the ICAO cruising levels and the removal of full position reporting, came in on 12 December 1991. In June 1993, IFR to IFR separation was supposed to be provided in low level airspace (that is, Class E) but it never happened.
Yes, I did stop the changed AMATS, when Buck Brooksbank decided to remove the directed traffic service from Class G airspace and not put in any low level Class E. From that day, I have been attempting to get back to the original AMATS plan – which was following the most proven airspace system in the world.
Here is a link to the yellow booklet which explains the dates. Note that on 12 December 1991, “Full reporting will no longer be available to VFR flights.” It also created CTAFs for the first time.
Daringly, it stated, “Where suitable communication facilities exist, clearance will be passed direct to pilots by ATC.” Wow! What an amazing change!
Note that this was the start of the use of ICAO airspace classifications.
I think I was somehow a little involved.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good on you Dick.
Keep chiseling away, I am sure that some progress will occur along the way. I don't think the cost is an issue, but the required culture change within ASA and CASA is what needs to be addressed..
Keep chiseling away, I am sure that some progress will occur along the way. I don't think the cost is an issue, but the required culture change within ASA and CASA is what needs to be addressed..
I’m always fascinated by the “Who’s going to pay?” logic. It assumes that there is some immutable rule of the universe that we all have to pay income tax, GST, fuel excise (plus GST) to the government, but then also pay for the “services” of government agencies.
The decision as to what is and is not funded 100% out of taxpayers’ funds is a political decision, not an immutable rule of the universe. The Airservices Act can be changed.
The cost of providing proper aviation infrastructure in Australia pales into insignificance when compared to the billions of taxpayer dollars wasted by government each year. As the water gets hotter and hotter, all us frogs need to keep that in mind.
The decision as to what is and is not funded 100% out of taxpayers’ funds is a political decision, not an immutable rule of the universe. The Airservices Act can be changed.
The cost of providing proper aviation infrastructure in Australia pales into insignificance when compared to the billions of taxpayer dollars wasted by government each year. As the water gets hotter and hotter, all us frogs need to keep that in mind.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Gold coast
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said dick but nothing will change unfortunately, hey didnt the government just find an extra 60 billion because they cant cant add up, oh wait they decided they do such a great job they have given themself a pay rise
Lead Balloon, whilst I don’t disagree with your notion that it would be nice if our taxes also paid for aviation services and infrastructure, the reality is that they don’t and they never will - good luck getting the Airservices Act to be changed on this matter. Therefore if the level of service increases as Dick suggests, we WILL pay for it. Government policies on user pays is an immovable reality I’m afraid.
Flying Higher, the “who is going to pay” argument is BS. First it assumes there are additional costs not recovered elsewhere. Then it assumes we have not already paid for such services.
Considering that AsA pays a dividend to the Government, it is obvious that we ave already paid for class E and a whole lot more services. The government just pockets the excess money.
To put that another way, there is a big difference between cost recovery and stealth taxation.
Considering that AsA pays a dividend to the Government, it is obvious that we ave already paid for class E and a whole lot more services. The government just pockets the excess money.
To put that another way, there is a big difference between cost recovery and stealth taxation.
A quick look at the annual report shows a target dividend (ROI0 to government of 10%, but there is the little matter of around 25 million in income tax also paid. So in 2018-19, they pushed about $35 million to treasury. Then of course there is the unstated cost of the whole corporate infrastructure that exists to prop up the farce that AsA is somehow. “market oriented” instead of a government monopoly. They rip over a billion a year out of the aviation industry.
....and as of 10 weeks ago Airservices was running at millions loss every week. They have gone to the Govt for money.
Airservices wont be spending a dime without Govt say so for the next few years.
Airservices wont be spending a dime without Govt say so for the next few years.
Keep at 'em Dick !
Just anothet example of the failed corporate mini states of CAsA , ATSB and ASA. which shows that until we have a Royal Commission into the whole of Aviation structure in this bureaucratically blighted country, vital GA and the whole industry will wither on the vine.
We could be like the USA, where little (and big) aviation thrives, but here its disgusting , disturbing and disasterous for the Nation. Ver sad.
Just anothet example of the failed corporate mini states of CAsA , ATSB and ASA. which shows that until we have a Royal Commission into the whole of Aviation structure in this bureaucratically blighted country, vital GA and the whole industry will wither on the vine.
We could be like the USA, where little (and big) aviation thrives, but here its disgusting , disturbing and disasterous for the Nation. Ver sad.
Some background. Cost recovery will be here to stay.
Cost recovery has been a feature of the provision of aviation regulatory services since 1956. The first in-depth approach to develop a policy for recovery of aviation fees and charges was the 1984 Report of the Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery, known as the Bosch report after its Chairman, Mr Henry Bosch. The review considered all Government aviation costs of which the costs generated by the safety regulation function was only a small component. This component was specifically addressed by the review and their conclusions (Chapter 19 of the Bosch Report). In summary, the Bosch Report recommended that the Government continue to fund the standards setting and compliance functions of the regulator and to increase the level of cost recovery for aviation safety regulatory services, achieving full cost recovery over a ten year period.
Cost recovery has been a feature of the provision of aviation regulatory services since 1956. The first in-depth approach to develop a policy for recovery of aviation fees and charges was the 1984 Report of the Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery, known as the Bosch report after its Chairman, Mr Henry Bosch. The review considered all Government aviation costs of which the costs generated by the safety regulation function was only a small component. This component was specifically addressed by the review and their conclusions (Chapter 19 of the Bosch Report). In summary, the Bosch Report recommended that the Government continue to fund the standards setting and compliance functions of the regulator and to increase the level of cost recovery for aviation safety regulatory services, achieving full cost recovery over a ten year period.