Dick Smith's open letter to John Anderson

[triadic]

Originally Posted by buckshot1777

Its a Broadcast Area (which have been around in various places for many years) not an MBZ (which disappeared many years ago), nor is it a CTAF.

Geez - don't confuse your students any more than they probably already are

However, perhaps the name is confusing or not specific enough? A MBZ tells you exactly what it is - an area (zone) where broadcasts are mandatory. As opposed that a "Broadcast Area" is perhaps anywhere in the country in class G ?? I know what makes more sense to me.

[pistonpuffer]

Dick, please dont bring Briattany Higgins into it.

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

For those who may be interested in reading the open letter to John Anderson, here is a link: https://aopa.com.au/dick-smith-issues-open-letter-to-former-aviation-minister-mr-john-anderson/?fbclid=IwAR1ENddU79-pejV640qjvCLZ4lMH29JNtYIm3btzAetvhrJX3LpX1_SnWOk

One of the prime reasons I have written the letter is because it will go into the aviation archives, and when future generations want to understand why GA in Australia was destroyed, they will have the information.

The issues with that lady should have stayed with the police, anything else contaminates the narrative and leads to bad policing.

[Dick Smith]

Mmmm! Maybe.

But at least it got you to comment!

What do you think about John Anderson’s public statement about air safety not being a question of cost?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Its ALWAYS about the MONEY Dick, YOU know that.......

"Affordable Safety".......
And -
"Your safety Will Be Enhanced And It Will Cost you LESS"..............

[alphacentauri]

What do you think about John Anderson’s public statement about air safety not being a question of cost?

I'd say he is half right, and half wrong. Air safety is actually about risk, and what the risk tolerance is of the Government and the Public. What he is actually saying in this quote is that his risk tolerance for an accident is zero.....therefore, as much money that is required to be spent will be spent in achieving this outcome.....ergo, this is not a question of cost. This is why our costs for participating in aviation have, and will continue to, rise. Everytime there is a new risk mitigator it will be implemented no matter the cost. If we don't, we are conceeding that our risk tolerance is not zero......and we can't be seen to be doing that.....even though that is the reality.

Unfortunaltely, no one has told him that zero risk is impossible.

How it should be done: there should be reasoned discussion amongst all stakeholders to establish the minimum level risk we are all prepared to accept for the operations we participate in (Hint: it won't be the same for all operations/classes of airspace). We all make this determination, knowing full well that we will need to fund this level of risk.

Job done

The problem is that John Anderson started the other way. He declared we will spend to infinity to reach zero. Fact is zero is not actually where we want to be.

Alpha

[Dick Smith]

Alpha. Your post is not factually correct.

You state “ every time there is a new risk mitigator it will be implemented “

We have a number of different safety standards set on affordability. For example some commercial aircraft are approved by CASA to operate with just one pilot.

They clearly do not in this case( one of many) mandate the risk mitigator of another pilot.

And it’s not the minimal risk we are PREPARED to accept. It’s the minimal risk we are FORCED to accept.

[alphacentauri]

Dick you just made my point for me,

The reason some commercial aircraft only have one pilot is because that is the risk we are prepared to ACCEPT. If we were FORCED, then there would be 2 pilots. The fact we can ACCEPT a lesser risk means we have also considered the financial argument.

Thats why John Andersons directives have not been implemented, because we can't afford it. This means that whatever the residual risk is because of that decision, we have ACCEPTED it.

I used those words in my post to illustrate what John Andersons intent was, so yes my post was 'factually correct'

[Dick Smith]

Why wouldn’t a person who became the Deputy Prime Minister show leadership and communicate the truth?

[Lead Balloon]

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

Why wouldn’t a person who became the Deputy Prime Minister show leadership and communicate the truth?

I’ve just spewed coffee all over my keyboard!

Bad news, Dick: There’s also no Santa or Easter Bunny.

[Lookleft]

You need to stop listening to the gnomes at the bottom of the garden Dick. As the Deputy PM is the leader of the Nationals and never really accountable for anything, the more realistic question is: Why would a person who became the Deputy Prime Minister show leadership and communicate the truth/

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

What WAS that 'saying' about 'pollies' telling fibs and their lips moving.........???

Oh Dear!....Me 'Old timers' has dun it again............

p.s. There's no 'Tooth Fairy' either, Mr. LB....................But....There WAS a 'redundo fairy' once upon a time.......
Ta muchly Mr. S................

[Dick Smith]

Griffo. As you probably know things are tough. I even had to sell my jet.

How about a bit of that redundo!

[Dick Smith]

Five months ago I started this thread in relation to my letter to John Anderson. In the letter I made some very serious claims, including the fact there had been 15 fatalities caused by the airspace changes not going ahead.

I copied my letter to just about every person of influence that I know in aviation and not one person has contacted me or posted on this thread that I was wrong in relation to the 15 fatalities.

How many more fatalities will there be before we go ahead with finishing the airspace reforms?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Probably because the airspace had little to do with at least two of them. Take them out and you've had two accidents in 16 years that you allege were airspace related, but involved completely different circumstances. Hardly reason for wholesale change.
Re Benalla 2004
"The investigation found that instructions to controllers relating to RAM alerts could be ambiguous. Actions taken by Airservices Australia to enhance alerts and clarify controllers' responses to them, should avoid a recurrence."
It would appear to have done so.

[Squawk7700]

I

If this is what happens within a mile of class D, I can’t help feel like we are on our own out in open skies.

[Lead Balloon]

Originally Posted by Squawk7700

I

If this is what happens within a mile of class D, I can’t help feel like we are on our own out in open skies.

Errrm, unless I've completely misunderstood how airspace works, I'm pretty sure "we are on our own out in the open skies" when VFR in Australian G. That's why we are obliged to keep a lookout for other traffic. Perhaps I've misunderstood your point?

[Squawk7700]

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon

Errrm, unless I've completely misunderstood how airspace works, I'm pretty sure "we are on our own out in the open skies" when VFR in Australian G. That's why we are obliged to keep a lookout for other traffic. Perhaps I've misunderstood your point?

When the controller is still actively talking to you outbound and also to the aircraft inbound on an RNAV, there’s a level of accountability still present… or at least you’d think there would be. If that ended up in court after fatalities, it would be a massive failure on the controller and ASA in terms of their duty of care.

[Lead Balloon]

Well IFR is different in Australian 'G', because it's really ForG. Mangalore was a massive failure. There will be more.

[Dick Smith]

Traffic. Which two accidents do you want removed from my airspace claim? Please communicate clearly on this point.

[alphacentauri]

All of them.

You can't prove that airspace was the causing factor for any of them. The only argument you've got is that NAS MAY have prevented them. You can't prove that either.

As Lead Balloon said, Mangalore was a massive failure. The question (for the investigation) is; were all participants in the airspace operating as intended. If the answer to that question is no, then the accident was not a result of the airspace. If the answer to that question is yes, then we have an airspace problem.