Why wouldn't they call the local CASA FOI and say "We're having a fly-in, expect a lot of aircraft, should be a fair bit of congestion on the area freq so how about we use an alternative frequency, we suggest 126.7."

That would have been smart, and to not do so is either showing lack of foresight, or an intention to deliberately overload the frequency in order to highlight the issue. You wouldn't have had anything to do with it I suppose?

Edit: Sorry Aussie Bob, I replied about half a second after you did. If CASA refused to be sensible about it, well fair enough, they're in the wrong.

AOTW I can assure you a huge effort was made to make 126.7 the frequency and it fell on deaf ears. The request was both verbally and in writing, made in plenty of time prior to the event.

In fact, overloading the system was what CASA seemed to think was correct.

Yep, understood - that's just a crazy decision by whoever at CASA responded to the request.

Dick


I had 13 years in the military, and I have now had 20 years experience outside the military. I have had a FRIGGIN GUTFUL of you bashing the military every time you post here. What has a fly in in Tassie got to do with the Military???????? Nufn. But you shove in a military bash anyway.


The RAAF was the most professional and competent unit with the best and most dedicated people I have ever been associated with.


I have been BOTH a military and civvie aviator. You have not.


Next time you bash the military on here with useless, childish and irrelevant rubbish, I'm gunna come round and punch you in the head. I am sick of your offensiveness.


Trevor the fighter

Trevor. Why after 30 years can't the military copy the best from around the world and put in some tower airspace at Willy and allow their controllers to use proper skills as they do in North America.

I happen to believe our Aussie military controllers are as capable as those overseas. it's just the pathetic leadership that can't make any changes at all.

Why can't they use D airspace when there is no military traffic? They simply can't make any change decisions at all. They sent those five to their deaths and it will happen again unless I and others can get in some change.

Notice how not one named military Controllor is ever a spokesman- it's because the system is designed to make sure no one is ever held accountable.

I will get more and more major media coverage on this. Now talking to 60 Minutes.

I see similarities with Cardinal Pell. Always protect the system if you are in charge. Never ever do what is ethical.

Seems to me that someone is hankering for a seat in one of the parliaments.

Dick

The current frequency arrangements for aerodromes that are not marked on charts have nothing to do with the preferences of ex-military personnel. You really do need to get that through your head, because alienating and angering a bunch of ex-military people is not doing your cause any good.

Your blaming the military is like your spelling of "rediculous": Patently wrong.

AOTW

Many of your genuinely well-meaning posts demonstrate how cut off you are from the way the system works for the mere private citizen. You'd think that getting a strip marked on a chart would be easy - after all, that is, apparently, why people have a legal obligation to have (and pay for) the current charts, and why there is a bureaucracy set up to produce those charts. You'd also think that getting a NOTAM published with a discrete frequency for a fly-in activity would be easy. And you'd think if such a NOTAM were published you could rely on most people to read, understand and comply with it.

Unfortunately, that's not the way it works for the plebs who presume to believe that they are entitled to a service in return for their income tax, fuel excise and GST, among other costs. The system is now so broken and confusing that most people just use the Mike Sierra Uniform procedure. A wonderful consequence of over 20 years and over 200 million of 'reform' down the gurgler.

All in the name of 'safety' of course. :ugh:

Well Biggles, I wouldn't necessarily see that as a bad thing M'self.:ooh:

Purely, for what I consider a self evident reason; Aussie Airspace and GA in general are f:mad:d and in desperate need of decent and sensible reform.:ugh:

The current Administration of this have shown themselves time and time again, incapable of carrying out this reform.:yuk:

Whether this is due to pure incompetence, ignorance, arrogance or malicious intent is for others far more educated in the subject than I to decide.:confused:

All I know is that Aussie Aviation, especially GA, need a voice somewhere in the halls of power that can be heard by even the most deaf of those in Government.:=

Currently, we do not have that voice.

LB, I'm far from cut off from the system - I fly in CTAFs and G every work day in GA aircraft and have also been on both sides of the dreaded military / civil fence for years each side, so I'm just speaking from my own point of view.

Dick's flagrantly provocative anti-military stance is becoming more and more annoying and just serves to piss people like me off! Aussie Bob explained the situation clearly, and I'm well on side with the idea that what happened wasn't right.

I never mentioned the difficulty or otherwise of getting an airstrip published on charts, never tried to do it, but if model aircraft flying fields and hang gliding areas can crack a mention on VTCs and the like I'm stuffed if I know why they would refuse to put a well-used airfield on.

Dick,

Isn't it time you turned on your spell checker?
survailance, rediculous, Cardinel.

All safety has to be affordable, Sunny. That's why the response to the Germanwings tragedy wasn't a requirement for a third pilot with duty time in every cockpit to cover when the PIC or copilot go to the toilet, or an AD requiring that cockpit doors be moved backwards so that the toilet is secure to the crew.

An easily foreseeable risk - another 150 or so dead people - yet the obvious mitigators of those risks have not been implemented. The reason is simple and stark: It's not a cost that's justified by the risk. In short, it's not "affordable".

Those who feed off the mystique of aviation need to realise that the only way to achieve perfect aviation safety is to ban it. At that point you're going to have to find some other fear to feed off.

Fuji. Thanks. I think I fixed a few of the spelln arrows !
At least I can spell the airspace categories A to G !

QED.

You should try it some time. They won't "refuse". They just won't respond in a practicable way. It is, after all, "user pays", and private citizens don't pay income tax, fuel excise, GST or anything else for the "privilege" of flying.

One of the more bizarre interactions I've recently witnessed was the 'safety'-based refusal to establish a permanent broadcast frequency for the Lake Eyre region and all ERSA entries for airfields in that region, eventually and strangely followed by the establishment of a permanent broadcast frequency for the Lake Eyre region and a corresponding amendment to all ERSA entries for airfields in that region.

It just 'happened'. No acknowledgement that, upon reflection, the regulator and the ANSP realised they were just being mule stupid.

Mr Smith,

I usually have some sympathy for what you say in that there is generally, in my opinion of course, some truth in what you say; however, you get too much collateral damage (oops a military term!).

You had TWO opportunities to fix this when you were in charge of CASA and its predecessor.

How did you go? Oh, I know, you blew up Flight Service in the name of NAS but somehow forgot that Flight Service that we used to have in OZ is exactly what you get in the US today.

Your rear guard attempt to rewrite your OWN history in this sorry mess is sad, sad, sad.

And I will say, I am ex-military and I firmly believe that you have NO IDEA what military flying requires: no idea, zilch, zero, nada.

You are right though, 'Sixty Minutes', that august source of nothing they do not spin for ratings or run with due to the 'celebrity' status of the source (not with everything but certainly in issues such as 'airspace' which the average punter could not give a toss about) is the way to 'fix' things.

Money does not equate to status in the aviation world. Unless of course you have to pay AsA their outrageous costs.

There we go; bring back Flight Service, that you removed, and use all your unquestionable influence and ability to get something into the press or onto TV about AsA and the 'user pays' model they seem to be welded to and do some good.

Stop knocking the military; otherwise they actually might take you seriously.

Dick was never in charge. He was duchessed into believing he was in charge, in the interests of political expediency.

5 minutes of research into the powers of the Chairman of the CASA Board is instructive. :ok:

Er, I think a look at Hansard may be enlightening.
I am talking about the CAA when Mr Smith was VERY involved; no?
THEN we have the CASA Board but that was the second time around when the current ACT was not the then ACT.
Dick,
Please enlighten us if you disagree with me.

I go away flying for a day (bossing about GA in a CTAF, Leddie, you would have had an apoplexy!!) and come back to this!! Needless to say, Dick, you're still full of it. :) :}

Once again, the insulting innuendo with no basis in fact. As I said on the other thread, the PIC had choices and didn't exercise them.

Your use of the word 'sent' is deliberate - I know that, and I know that it's for PR purposes. Nonetheless, IMHO, it's dishonest, and implies to the unwashed that the RAAF 'controlled' and, therefore, 'directed' the aircraft over the Barrington Tops; rather than the PIC making that decision. The words 'sneaky,' 'underhanded,' 'manipulative,' 'disingenuous,' 'opportunistic,' 'manic,' and 'possessed' all come to mind; along with a long list of other synonyms. But that's just my opinion.

Good luck with that one. 60 Minutes these days has about as much credibility as those breakfast shows that are fluff. In any event, your potential bogan audience will probably prefer be tuned in to some reality TV show on cooking, surviving in the jungle, or seeing what the Kardashians are up to.

You still have potential for good, Dick. But you just continually screw it with emotive scare campaigns!

Hey Dick,

I just 'HAD' to go and post a 'p.s.' to post #20....
A bit (LOT) 'presumptious' of ya mate, I s'pose I should appreciate the 'compliment'.
And, after trying a glass or two of red - just like someone else I know - I just thought I should thank you.

But, alas, I canna claim na fame for recent RAPAC etc etc

I gotta good laugh however......

Cheers:ok:

Mr Smith,
You have done some amazing things yourself as a pilot and I am the first to congratulate you on your ability to continue through what must have been some very 'puckering' moments.

However, if your 'day' job is teaching people how to do high angle, dive bombing at night from the back seat of a fighter, then you can get that 'pucker' factor without any fanfare at all.

RAAF ATCs come to the fore when there are MULTIPLE aircraft, most of which have no gas, all trying to land ASAP; something that I know civilian ATCs can handle (many of those boys and girls are ex military anyway) but they are not called on to do it often if at all. They have other challenges which I guess are equally demanding at times.

The 'management' in the military is not the problem. It is 'attitude', the approach to getting the job done with the minimum of fuss, which most probably is the same in the civilian world, and an understanding of a 'duty of care'.
So, go ahead with knocking ATC/Military/lack of short cuts in Willy's airspace but leave the people out of it: including senior management of the RAAF.

Bloggs,
How do you think any 'lead' would go on a dark night at Saltash or the shooting world?

In the civilian realm, most probably only AG pilots, particularly those who do night spraying on cotton or some such, would know how 'exciting' a day to day job can be.

No elitism intended here; aviation is tricky from the air and from the ground (ATC). We all do our best.

Get that on 'sixty minutes'.