Dick Smith: Legal Action against CASA re. CTAFs
 

http://rosiereunion.com/file/skidmore.pdf

Folks,
The above link will take you to a letter that is the opening of a legal action by Dick Smith against CASA.

As you would expect, Dick has taken legal advice from leading Senior Counsel.

Mark O'Brien, the instructing Solicitor is one of the top solicitors in Sydney. O'Brien was, for many years, Kerry Packer's solicitor of choice and a formidable lawyer.

With these sort of people behind the action, it must be a very strong case, and fully supports the views of the RAPACs and others on VHF frequency usage.

See for yourself.

Tootle pip!!

Gee, it MUST be... :cool:

Bloggsie,
If you actually bothered to read it and understand, you would see what a compelling narrative and legally strong case it actually is.
Tootle pip!!

I'd reckon 100% of lawyers in a court room would think they have that, but only 50% of them are right :ok:

All lawyers have an 'unloseable' case until they do, and then they send you the bill, so they don't....

Does that make sense...?

Must be the 1st of.....

Cheeerrrssss :confused:

I wish it could be worked out without the solicitors. While 126.7 could be one solution, the needless commentaries I heard this morning blocking it for miles will only increase and the one radio aeroplane will not be on this frequency over an unmarked farm field anyway. Calling on the area is not much of an option either it appears, so what is the answer? Do we really need a court to work it out? Perhaps 2 radios? Perhaps no radio? Perhaps just legislate lighties away? I dunno.

Aussie. The answer is really simple. Just copy the country that has about thirty times the amount of traffic in the same land area.

In North America they have half a dozen CTAF frequencies available. Simply allocate one of those frequencies if there is too much traffic in a given area. We already do that.

Interesting how it's not in your realm of thinking that we should copy the best proven systems from anywhere!

Not actually as stupid as it sounds. Over here, the high-flyers (F290 and above) are generally on a different freq to the low levellers and so will not be comm-jammed by rampant calls on Area...

I never said that Dick, it is well within my realm of thinking. My main point is that I wish it could be done without solicitors. I am also impressed that you are having a go too, no doubt not a cheap exercise.

Remember the saying

"Owe a bank 200,000 and you have a problem, owe them 200,000,000 and they have the problem"

Dicks tilt at CASA has all the hallmarks of CASA having the problem.

My guess it will be quietly decided over tea and biscuits.

If he wins this one what about ADS - B???????

Dhav. Unlikely over tea and biscuits. They will throw an enormous amount of the industry's money at this to make sure no one ever gets any success through legal action.

It's how the Canberra bureaucracy works - protect any individual within the group who makes a mistake .

It won't cost me a cent as I will take the money from what would normally be donated to organisations like the RFDS and Angel Flight. I would imagine hundreds of thousands of dollars will be siphoned to the legal fraternity while CASA supports the incompetent.

I find Sir Angus and Mr Skidmore are similar to Cardinal Pell. That is all thoroughly decent people who think that their prime job is to defend the. " the system" and those in it against any outside criticisms or attacks. It is sad.

When I first went on the CAA Board the Chairman Allan Woods took me aside and said from then on I must support all CAA personel and the decisions they made. Very strange I thought.

dick, they won't change, period. they regard themselves (in Canberra) as 'rulers'. Their customer is the minister, not aviators, least of all GA or recreational pilots. entry to the magic circle is now via the military or legal professions. sorry, I'm feeling cynical this morning.

I reckon they'll see sense and make it 126.7 - just my uninformed opinion, but it seems pretty clear-cut that cluttering the area freq is anti-common sense.

With it, though, there needs to be a push for getting people to cut out unnecessary calls to avoid clashes on 126.7 at airfields close to one another - just one inbound to an airfield or taxiing, and rolling and base calls if needed (or not if you can see all the circuit traffic and know you're clear).

I agree with Dick here and wish him well with this push. Can't say I've become a fan of his rhetoric though - Cardinal Pell eh? You are a master of propaganda, Dick!

And we know where that idea came from, don't we Dick? Yet another "good idea at the time" that CASA quite rightly fixed up later. But we are still stuck with it. First, it was the "don't say anything!" letter to us all, then it was the NAS talk "yourself around the circuit" nonsense and finally, as it was and should always have been, two mandatory calls and the rest "on demand". For every one of these changes, it has taken 10 years to sift through the system. Shame on you.

Propaganda??

So, far more traffic than us (15x, was it?), the same area, and only 5 CTAFs plus, I assume, 126.7. Sounds like that'd work...

Bloggs. I have no idea what you are raving about. The NAS works superbly in Canada and the USA and it could do so here.

The problem is that it is half wound back here. Giving circuit calls on ATC frequencies is madness in most people's view.

This morning Sydney radar was paralleled with Sydney departures resulting in VFR announcements jamming the departure frequency. Once again complete madness .

Good, report it to your RAPAC convenor and he/she can take it up with CASA. It did ask for feedback re VFR broadcasts on ATC frequencies, so this is the info that should be provided.

FYI, I am not arguing against being on the Multicom, Dick. I can see both sides of the argument. I'm merely being sceptical. After all, your track record so far WRT Alerted See and Avoid in E and verbal diarrhoea calls in the circuit is not good...

What frequencies were involved this morning and roughly what time? I'll pull them off LiveATC and have a listen.

Unfortunately I cannot give a time however it happens each weekend when the the frequencies are combined. Often caused by float planes north of Sydney on 124.55 I suggested to CASA that the 120.8 victor lane CTAF be extended to cover the Hawkesbury River. Got no where of course.

You only need one VFR self announcement on a departure frequency at the wrong time to cause problems. Does anyone know of any other country where VFR self announce on Departure frequencies of a big international airport? I bet not.

Wow is this Dick Smith the famous Aussie Entrepreneur?

I think its great that someone with the connections, resources, & industry experience is prepared to fight for the betterment of the people/industry. Thank you.

It's ironic that in a so called "democracy" the people really have little say, and while there are legal mechanisms for justice, they are pretty much unaffordable for almost all in society.

Something has to change. Im sick of ministers steering the direction of the nation, with ZERO qualifications or experience in the area which they govern. Turnbull was the communications minister, did he have a technical background in telecommunications or IT? No hes a lawyer and a Goldman Sachs banker. Abbot was minister for women?? its a joke right.. :yuk:

Most politicians are ex lawyers, and this is the problem. The only way they know how to solve problems is with more legislation or harsher penalties. This is the lawyer mindset. But it's ineffective. Example: Some states in US even have the death penalty for some crimes (arguably the harshest possible penalty), but those crimes still occur. Infact, the homicide rate is often lower in non death penalty states
Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates | Death Penalty Information Center

Real world solutions & improvements are the product of Science, Engineering, Healthcare, & Business. I believe that people that have lived and breathed in the relevant industries, with first hand real world experience, are the only people that can truly understand the issues and come up with effective solutions.

I challenge anyone reading this to pick a minister in charge of a sector, and research their career history. Most have ZERO relevant experience/qualifications... and these people rule the future of our nation :uhoh::yuk:

I wonder how many people in CASA that dont even hold a PPL/CPL :confused:

Now, THERE's an 'interesting' question Mr K.......

Not 'enough' it would seem.....

Cheers:}

I would guess 90% of CAsA dont have aviation experience or PPl/CPL
Its full of career bureaurats building many empires within the Greater CAsA Caliphate...the controller and ruler of Aviation and the GA peasantry.

Its one of the great cons in federal government that $$ squillions can be urinated away by an Agency on the pretence that all the paperwork, fees and burdensome rules are actually making it "safer"
Its a crock of...but there is no political interest, knowledge or will to do anything about it.
Advance Australia where..down the gurgler?.
Exciting times, innovation etc are just all money spending thought bubbles in political heads.
We have reached the stage where we dont need these people any more and a revolution by the people, for the people is our only hope.
Dream on...

Been done before...
 

A blast from the past (2003)... Hell hath no fury like... scorned!! :)

http://s26.postimg.org/yj1s8pnex/nassue.jpg

Whatever became of Air Safety Australia and the 2000 pilots it represented? They don't seem to have such a high profile in the current debate or did BM find another cause to champion?

Dick,
Presumably you'll need to present examples of congestion?

If you could use the help, perhaps Ppruners could be enlisted to monitor
frequencies?

Mickjoebill

Mickj. No. Not examples of congestion. Little chance of congestion in Australia.

It's that one call. The chance in 1000 where it blocks an important ATC instruction.

That's why Airspace Regulators in other countries do not allow VFR non directed announcements on ATC frequencies.

I would also imagine it's about ATC professionalism in those countries - the controller is in " control " of the frequency .

ICAO specify broadcasts should not be made on Approach Control Frequencies - no mention is made about area control frequencies.

So on the weekend when Airservices connects Sydney radar class G frequency of 124.55 to retransmit on the Sydney approach/departure frequencies that's in conflict with the ICAO very sensible decision.

And our ATCs say nothing!

You have float planes yakking away at Brooklyn Bridge blocking out communication to a Qantas 380 on departure to LAX.

Only in Australia. It's amateurish. I wrote to CASA suggesting that the 120.8 Victor Lane frequency that I introduced after great resistance be extended to the Brooklyn Bridge area to reduce the chance of VFR self announce calls blocking ATC instructions on approach and departure frequencies. Got nowhere as they resist change.

Dick, I'm going to keep saying this until it sinks in:

It doesn't happen! Maybe that's why the ATCs don't have to say anything in complaint.

The mere fact that you have a bee in your bonnet about the likelihood, doesn't make it so. Neither will hysterical tabloid claims about floatplanes interfering with A380s.

Perhaps it didn't happen because someone examined whether it was actually a problem, heeded the results and concluded that it wasn't. (Maybe they even asked a few people who regularly fly airline jets in that airspace.)

If that's what you call "resistance to change", here and in a heap of other interminable threads you've started, so be it. Sometimes a good reason for resistance to change is that none is needed.

Certainly, if I was the one deciding on such changes, I'd be taking some advice from those regularly using such airspace - at both ends of the comm link. I'd hope not to be consumed by a personal agenda, unrelated to the demonstrated facts.

No. It's just resistance to change. I have experience with that since " 2 years in the aviation hall of doom ". days.


When Mick Toller started with CASA he mentioned to me that as a Cathay 747 skipper he couldn't believe on departure from Sydney he and his crew had to listen to VFR aircraft talking to each other in the light aircraft lane. He said this would not be allowed anywhere else in the world.

I said " now you will be in a position to fix it"

Of course nothing has changed- probably won't until there is a horrendous incident or accident. I agree. Hasn't happened yet- but that's no reason not to try and fix the problem which has only been caused because , before I made the AMATS changes , those calls would have been on FS frequencies and not affect ATC approach and departure traffic.

And it would be so simple to fix- get the float planes to call in the circuit at Cottage Point on the CTAF 126.7. Oh. Stupid me. I forgot . Latest CASA regs supported by Mr Skidmore say calls at unmarked aorodromes( water landing areas?) must be on the area frequency- which in this case is 125.8/124.55 - the frequencies that are re transmitted on Sydney Departures. Can't win!

Agra re " doesn't happen"

I tried to get some low level NAS class E in at places like Benalla.

Now six dead.

It does happen if you resist change and don't copy the best.

Which has precisely what to do with overtransmitting?

You also pressured the ATSB to issue a recommendation that all turbine aircraft and helicopters of 6 seats or more be fitted with TAWS to prevent another Benalla. They did that so why aren't you banging on about CASA not following the rest of the world by mandating another expensive bit of equipment be installed?

Dick, please listen. Please.

I use Sydney Departures with almost depressing regularity, and there is simply not an issue with VFR aircraft in the lightie lane talking to each other. (Insert retort here along the lines of "Well there aren't any VHF aircraft any more because of the RAAF/frequency boundaries on charts/resistance to change/whatever.") Maybe it was an issue back when Mick Toller was a CX skipper, but that was a long time ago. If there was really a problem now, I'd be squealing as loudly as anyone.

I'll say it again: this is simply not an issue. And even if it was, what in the name of God is this horrendous incident or accident that you claim will happen?

If you've got coherent and sensible arguments to make, then I'm sure people will get on board with them. This is just a beat-up.

Perhaps having to share the frequency with menial lighties offended his delicate ears. But did he say he was ever overtransmitted? Did he ever feel that his safety was threatened?

So maybe it didn't need fixing? And you didn't need to "win"?

Maybe, it's because the lightie overflying Cottage Point would actually like to hear that a floatplane is about to launch from under them? Perhaps that might be because the lightie may not even be aware that there's an alighting area there, so he is correctly on 125.8? And maybe the floatplane would also like to hear from the lightie he's about to share the sky with?

And, since you studiously ignore all assurances that your alleged problem doesn't exist, maybe the only person you've ever listened to is the one who agreed with your personal crusade?

Stop resisting change Dick and get ADSB!

Bugger I just realised, I'm in the wrong thread! I get lost amongst all the threads harping on about the same things again and again!

I was the one who was involved in removing the Flight Service duplicated system. You were clearly not - so have no responsibility.

I have a responsibility to finish the job or ensure we go back to the pre AMATS system where VFR did not make announcements on ATC frequencies. It's amateur- I want a professional internationally proven safe system.

Bloody hard. It's about the holes in the cheese lining up.

As just one example look at ATSB report 199601917 of a serious incident on the 21 June 1996 between a 747 and a BA146.

There was the possibility of a disastrous mid air with 100s dead because the ATC was distracted by a VFR pilot making self announcements .

Yes. You don't hear so many VFR calls on Sydney departures because I have done everything I can to advise pilots that their family or friends may be on board the Airline that is involved in a mid air because the ATC is distracted by their calls.

Also the NAS documentation made it very clear that VFR should not make self announcements on ATC frequencies.

But I can see you want a real accident before we copy those experienced from overseas accidents

Yes. That's the history of aviation. Make the changes after people die!

And Agra. If the 120.8 CTAF covered that area there would be no need for calls on ATC approach frequencies and an alerted see and avoid environment would result.

It seems that the problem in that incident was that the VFR pilot was unnecessarily prefixing his calls with "Brisbane Centre", so it wasn't really self announcements per se that were the problem, more the misunderstanding of the newly introduced RAS system by the VFR pilot, which then required the ATC to respond. Under the RAS, VFR pilots were quite entitled to call ATC, so the pilot was not incorrect in being on frequency. It didn't help that the ATC also used an inappropriate separation procedure in the first place between the 747 and the 146.
It seems that in the 20 years since that incident, the issue does not seem to have been much more of a problem.

So if I understand right, it goes something like this:

Dick: There's a shocking problem with YSSY DEPS that may cause a horrendous accident!

Pilots who frequently use YSSY DEPS: No, there's no such problem.

Dick: That's right, but only because I, personally, have solved this problem.


That's excellent news. I'm sorry, I failed to fully comprehend the extent of your powers. Presumably you could use those powers to solve the current overall non-issue in exactly the same way, instead of taking it to court. The Federal Court's valuable time will be spared, large amounts of public money won't be spent on lawyers, and highly improbable horrendous disasters will continue to be highly improbable. A big thumbs-up from me. :ok:

"And it would be so simple to fix- get the float planes to call in the circuit at Cottage Point on the CTAF on 126.7."

Dick,
I sometimes have the wonderful pleasure of driving my friends' 40' wooden boat that is usually moored at KMYC, Cottage Point along Cowan Creek and up to Refuge Bay or other places around the Hawkesbury River.

Often, an amphibious Beaver or Caravan will take off towards us as we cruise along. It's a rather brilliant experience and I believe perfectly safe.

But the next time that I have the pleasure of doing this, I'll be concerned that a QF A380 may crash somewhere due to all the local communications jamming Sydney Departures.

Traffic. Are you really suggesting that if the VFR pilot had made the same number of calls but without the prefix that the breakdown of separation would not have happened?

Surely any calls must be listened to and therefore can be distracting.

Why do you think in other countries (and also in Australia before the AMATS changes ) it is prohibited for VFR to make non directed announcements on air traffic control frequencies that are also used for separation purposes?

What's wrong with Australian rules protecting our Air Traffic Controllers from an unfair situation and a chance of losing their career because of the calls taking attention away from the real task- keeping passenger jets apart.

What's wrong with having a similarly disciplined system to Europe and North America?