Dick Smith's open letter to John Anderson
 

I was interviewed by Laura Jayes on Sky News today in relation to my open letter to John Anderson. It looks as if Bloggsie wrote her introductory piece.

Here is a link to the interview.

To me, it sounded like she was very much against you before you even started.....

Or maybe she has done her research.

Yep. Mcoates. But I don’t mind that.

The more open communication about Airspace safety the greater the likelihood that someone in the Canberra bureaucracy will say. “ hold on - this is ridiculous- we should do something about this”

And then ATCs will not have to sit and watch while planes collide and people die!

It was a good interview.

She had done her research and so had you and you rebutted accordingly, adding value to your arguments. Well done.

She has an action to talk to the current transport minister, so let’s see what happens there.

Wasn't mine, Dick, I don't even call them planes, let alone aircrafts.

Traffic lights for all intersections NOW!, I hear him scream. Or do I? :cool:

Why would they start to change their thinking now?

Four fatalities at Mangalore?

Were there any RPT aircraft involved?

No. But four professional pilots.

Could be RPT at Ballina next time?

Thats my point. Until it is RPT nothing will change. They have already had enough evidence that see and avoid does not work at Ballina yet they keep fiddling at the edges. They put in a fire station, now its a 15nm CTAF. The Canberra bureaucracy, that even you were unable to bring to heel, will continue to accept that there is no problem that a little tinkering won't fix. Its only when the TV news has wall to wall coverage of the burnt wreckage of a (insert airline of choice) then will action be taken.

it's a whole new type of airspace they've created, an MBZ.

Now when I'm doing flight reviews I give my usual spiel about mandatory CTAF radio calls, and then finish with "except when you're within 15nm of Ballina..."

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 :)

Doubt they'd be confused by the name given to it. What it's requirements are though however...

Does Dick Smith always talk in 3rd person

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.

Dick, I understood that Anderson's directive to ASA regarding RADAR Class C airspace was issued on the understanding that you would withdraw your threat to stand against him in seat of Gwydir.
Is this correct or was I mis-led?

An "Advanced Search" on this site's "PPRuNe Worldwide" forum for the keyword "Gwydir" might turn up some interesting threads around the early 2004 period.

Missy. Great story! But it’s not true.

The radar directive was to get the E back in above the D.

Just like Broome! And all of the USA.

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.

Dick, please dont bring Briattany Higgins into it.
 

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

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?

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

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

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

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.

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'

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.

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/

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................

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

How about a bit of that redundo!

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?

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.

I
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....dc1528f3b6.png
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?

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.

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

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

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.