Golly Gee Dick...….

"Your Safety Will Be Enhanced And It Will Cost You Less".......
(The devil made me do it....honestly....)

p.s. Thanks for.........

I trust you put in a submission to rrat-sen, Sunny.
You statement about the regulator is correct.
We havent had an efficient, consistent, ethical and lawful regulator for decades and many have lost already.,Buckley, Butson Quadrio, and many, many others..
Its a national disgrace and the burden on the "common wealth" has been astronomical.
And the lack of interest in a vital industry by Governments aand a complete lack of governance over CAsA is disgusting.

Quote:

---

It is perfectly OK if you’re Dick Smith & pushing an agenda (like he always is)...

---

The problem with that is?

fatality rate
 

Accidents are caused by a huge number of contributing factors which are rarely the same. So in some ways they are independent statistical events.

As such they will actually occur in a random fashion and will not occur over a short period at the same rate as the long term average.

To see this try tossing a coin 20 times and note the sequences of H and T.

SB.

Sorry but that is simply not correct. I was at 501 the morning that PWC were appointed - it was Wednesday, 12 September. I can remember hearing about the Twin Towers at lunch time that day and then watching the TV coverage that afternoon at home (quite a few of us went for a stroll that afternoon). PWC subsequently ordered operations to cease at 2.00am on Friday, 14 September.

​​​​On the following Monday, the 17th, at the behest of the union, PWC got rissoled and Arthur Andersen was appointed. They reversed the cease operation and reverted to a trade on administration. The two Marks, who were the Andersen's administrators appointed, then decided to rissole Andersen and strike out on their own.

Agree with George about Ansett. I was working in the Victorian government at the time and pleaded for a rescue package. I was told to eff off, Canberra had determined that Ansett was a threat to Qantas and had to go.

George Glass, do you really believe that removing Flight Service and its $40 million cost a year was a bad decision? Who would have paid the $40 million per year since then? Something like $1.12 billion to be paid for by the people with the service available to them – basically general aviation.

In relation to CTAFs, what was wrong with copying the best in the world? Or do you think we should have remained unique in Australia, where each airport was on a Flight Service frequency and CTAFs did not exist?

It has ever been thus Dick and not just in Aviation. All the rest of the world is wrong, only Australia is right.
We could have had US or NZ rules for a couple of million, a couple of years to implement and had a safer system.
Instead we get our home made one's, half a billion in costs, thirty years and counting to complete and the collapse of a whole industry.
We are no safer for it, just a lot poorer.

I recall being told at an industry meeting by Airservices quite some time ago that towards the end when the flight service units and briefing offices at GA airports had closed that flight service was costing about $15m per year.

And then when they were finally got rid of, very little was saved because

1. the functions FS provided in class G/OCTA were transferred to ATC, who were paid significantly more and required additional staff and consoles to do the work hence ATC costs increased, and
2. the facilities used by FS e.g. FIA VHF outlets didn't disappear, they were transferred to ATC.

The thread title is "Ten fatalities in 9 weeks?" and refers to the period 6 October to 16 December 2019.

Can we adhere to that period or at least recent history?

We really don't need yet another repetitious regurgitation of he last 40 years of DCA/AsA air space management and service.

Please? :{

For those masochists wanting to relive the past, please use our Search function to find the multitude of previous relevant threads.

OOOHHHH C'mon 'Mr Tailie'...…

I wuz jest gettin' wound up.....

OH, awright……., I'll just bugger orf then...…

Cheeerrrsss…..

xx p.s. Thanks again Mr Richard Sir.......For the...….'Big R'...….

Back on topic...

For those who suggest “there is no statistical significance in [a] single event that contributes such a large fraction of the sample”, “events like these are stochastic until proven otherwise” and it’s not “appropriate to extrapolate accident stats like that”, I agree. There is that trite saying about lies, damn lies and statistics.

But if you’re going to criticise Dick for implying that there is some causal connection between the specific spate of recent fatalities and ‘something else’ - I note he only asked a question about what that ‘something else’ might be - you should be criticising the others that do precisely the same. For example, look at what CASA and ATSB did to justify the Community Service Flight kneejerk. Wrap your brain around this circular logic:Let us not entertain the possibility that waiting for “sufficiently robust data” might show that “being prospective” was really just “a kneejerk”. And strange that they don’t apply the same logic to HCRPT operations in and out of aerodromes in G. Apparently we’re going to wait for the collision that kills a a 737 full of fare paying pax before acting.

It seems to me that about the only valid conclusion that can be drawn about the accident and incident rate in Australia is that a few decades and a few hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars lazily sunk into the regulatory reform program have had little causally positive consequence for the accident and incident rate. The program has produced a few millionaires, so I suppose that’s a kind of silver lining.

It seems to me that some people involved in aviation spend a lot of time and money bringing about changes that have, on balance, been generally beneficial for aviation. It seems to me that other people involved in aviation spend a lot of time and money producing little that is beneficial for aviation.

WRT to the comparison of the Ansett collapse to the current decline in Aviation, specifically the sacking of the crusty old engineers, have you tried to get hold of an inspector recently in the Melbourne office? Carmody et al aren’t replacing any inspectors who resigns, retires or walks out in disgust. And those who are left appear to be on sick leave, or seconded to other projects. Now taking months to get any applications through

Vref+5, doesn’t sound good. When TSHTF in an organisation, the scene is as you described. People leave and aren’t replaced, the rest are head down, trying not to get noticed. They know there is big trouble coming, well before senior management does.

The information I thought I saw - about CASA doing some IT based “transformation”, if true, is a desperate attempt to stave off organisational disaster. An IT solution to perceived problems is often proposed by managers trying to buy time and fix serious issues and it always fails.

The reason it fails is that if a business process is paper driven but “broken” then trying to computerise it just makes it worse. If CASA regulations are unclear now, just wait until a software architect tries to turn them into machine logic.

With the greatest respect, I suggest that this is not perspective, but, rather, irrelevancy.

With the greatest respect, I suggest that this is irrelevancy , but, rather, not perspective. We all have our own views on these matters, would I rather die in an aircraft accident or the many other ways Banjo mentions? Mmmmmm.......

The point I seek to make is that analysis of accidents is important and useful. Suggestions that you have to die of something (staph, domestic violence, sharks, etc) aren't helpful to me. Nor is the suggestion that dying in a plane accident would somehow be OK.

I suspect we agree on all of the above, we might just be stating our views in difference ways.

Another accident. 15 fatalities in 22 weeks?

The current system is not my system.

“ my system” if you can call it that is AMATS or NAS.

I have always been opposed to the present system where VFR aircraft have to monitor an endless cacophony of calls that are irrelevant!

No monitoring required if you have ads-b out and a cheap adsb-in device with relatively basic software to display conflicts!