Dick Smith - Hero, I think not

[frank marriott]

I am not saying we should return to everything we did back in the old days. However there are a lot of things which were taken away under the misleading catchphrase of "affordable safety" which I think were nonsense decisions

So true.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Onto our current day system: a colleague of mine was flying VFR to a large country airstrip. He called up before his descent and asked for traffic. In the USA this would never be an issue and they'd give you radar observed traffic. Here in Australia you've got buckley's because you're VFR and frequently outside radar coverage. The controller refused to give him traffic - he's VFR and not entitled to it anyway. He responded "Roger, flight plan details when ready to copy". The controller was a bit shocked and asked him to go ahead, and he promptly changed to IFR status, gave tracking and level details, an ETA, then requested traffic! Lo and behold there was conflicting outbound traffic with whom he had to coordinate separation from, and the other pilot complimented him on his tactic. From the airmanship side he now had separation coordinated many miles before the conflict would have occurred as well as a very good indication of where to look out for it, rather than just hoping for the best that he would catch the other aircraft visually (which had already given its departure call before he was on frequency) before anything became an issue.

When I leave CTA (VFR) to fly into my home strip (in class G) the controllers will very often let me know what traffic there is (VFR or IFR) in the vicinity without prompting. Only today I heard a controller informing another plane leaving CTA of my (VFR) presence in class G. Why do some do this and others not?

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

In the USA the regulatory regime is dominated by what they consider their "Constitutional rights", which in many cases amounts to a right to be a complete moron resulting in the death of yourself and others. Not many other countries, including Australia, see it that way.You can still go through military areas in Australia. You just have to ask. I fly VFR through Richmond CTR (which is much larger than a Class D tower would have) every time I fly to maintenance and frequently when it is active. Not once have I ever been refused a clearance, but I would expect that if there was a formation of 6 C130s airdropping 200 parachutists over Londonderry DZ right near the VFR route, I would probably be refused a clearance. In the USA however, it's your divine right to fly straight through the middle of it. I have no issues with not allowing such personal piloting decisions to be made. The difference is that in Australia they won't let you be a dangerous fool, but in the USA they will.

 

Even so, if you have a genuine gripe about something ATC is not letting you do, there is a very simple and 100% guaranteed way of getting your way. It is called an "operational requirement" (but you better be prepared to justify it).

 

Onto our current day system: a colleague of mine was flying VFR to a large country airstrip. He called up before his descent and asked for traffic. In the USA this would never be an issue and they'd give you radar observed traffic. Here in Australia you've got buckley's because you're VFR and frequently outside radar coverage. The controller refused to give him traffic - he's VFR and not entitled to it anyway. He responded "Roger, flight plan details when ready to copy". The controller was a bit shocked and asked him to go ahead, and he promptly changed to IFR status, gave tracking and level details, an ETA, then requested traffic! Lo and behold there was conflicting outbound traffic with whom he had to coordinate separation from, and the other pilot complimented him on his tactic. From the airmanship side he now had separation coordinated many miles before the conflict would have occurred as well as a very good indication of where to look out for it, rather than just hoping for the best that he would catch the other aircraft visually (which had already given its departure call before he was on frequency) before anything became an issue.

 

I am not saying we should return to everything we did back in the old days. However there are a lot of things which were taken away under the misleading catchphrase of "affordable safety" which I think were nonsense decisions.

I think you're making my earlier point for me. Are you a free citizen or a subject? In my experience the USA is happy for you to kill yourself but draws the line at killing others. The Europeans generally simply ban all that is not expressly permitted. Australia is somewhere in between but getting better in some ways, worse in others. CASA pretty much doesn't care of sport aviators kill themselves (except when it suits them to make rules) or anyone silly enough to fly in the same aircraft with them. They have to try to ensure the safety of those on the ground, many of whom think aircraft are inventions of the Devil and of the other airspace users.

 

The FAA has the same mandate but seems to do it all in a much less heavy handed fashion.

 

Well I've had some experience with the Richmond CTR. I've been refused clearance more than once, flightplan or not. Once was when I could tell that something was going on at 20,000 feet and the bloke couldn't be bothered so we went over the mountains via Katoomba. It was possible that day. Another time, coming in from the north to go to Camden at about 4pm on a Friday afternoon I was refused clearance and an indefinite delay promised so again we flew over the mountains. So coming back a couple of days later I put in a plan, launched within a couple of minutes of estimate, called the controller at the VFR reporting point north of Camden only to have him tell me he didn't have my plan (lodged a couple of hours earlier) and where was this place I was talking about? They must have rummaged around on the floor and found it as several minutes later I got the clearance. Great stuff being exposed to the risk of engine failure over the Blue Mountains when a safer alternative exists.

 

Have a look at Oakey. Right in the middle of some of the safest, nicest glider flying area in Australia. They are lucky to put half a dozen helicopters in the air at once and when the basic and advanced training goes to Nowra there might be 20 helicopters based there plus the Singaporeans who don't seem to fly all that much. I know a young friend who flys the ARH Tiger had trouble a couple of times doing a formation ride as they couldn't get 2 of the 7 to work at the same time. For this we have a vast amount of controlled airspace? I'd share airspace with a few VFR helicopters in VMC any day without any control.

 

Your second to last paragraph pretty much sums up what Dick is saying. What a stupid rigmarole and how well was the bloke looking out while transmitting his IFR plan? Was there other traffic simply transiting the area that he didn't hear?

 

Affordable safety must be one of the most misunderstood concepts ever. There is actually no such thing as "unaffordable safety". It will simply cause the activity to cease. Dick has explained it many times - spend the money where it does the most good in terms of accidents prevented or lives saved. Resources are always limited so if you don't do this, the activity will be more dangerous than it needs to be.

 

 

[graham brown]

How does extending class E airspace here in Australia make it any better for RAAus pilots? It will either exclude them from the airspace or cost them a transponder. Dick will get a better service at the cost of the little guys.

 

We all have to justify our airspace and that's what RAPAC is for.

 

There will be solutions to this in the future with cheap ADSB in and out and air to air alert systems similar to FLARM but they are not here now.

 

Sorry Mike I did not intend to raise your blood pressure.

 

BTW I have operated gliders and GA extensively in the USA. Others possibly have to hence the snipe. Sorry

 

Cheers

 

Graham

 

 

[nickduncs84]

Well, seeing as this topic is about Dick Smith, I'll throw in my 2 cents to get back on topic. IMHO, how anyone who loves aviation can be opposed to Dick Smith is beyond me. Threads like this only reiterate why we have a problem in the first place. All this moaning and nitpicking amongst those that should be able to band together to fight the real issues that impact on all of general / recreational aviation. Rotax vs Jabiru, RA Aus vs GA, Dick Smith having an opinion on something related to aviation that you don't agree with. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be free to discuss it, because after all, it's our passion for aviation that makes us passionate about aviation related topics, but when push comes to shove, we would all be better off if we learned to get along a little more often on the things that really matter. Dick Smith is an aviation enthusiast. To put it bluntly, if he was the Prime Minister, general and recreational aviation in Australia would be better for it. What some people don't seem to understand is that for the vast majority, recreational and general aviation doesn't matter. Governments do have the ability to totally kill (and I mean totally kill, not just almost kill as it now stands) all forms of affordable recreational aviation just like they have the ability to upset any small subset of the population without consequence.

 

At the end of the day, love him or hate him, I would like to think that if you ever get the chance to vote for him, you don't let the small stuff get in the way of what should really matter.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Are you a free citizen or a subject?

Lol.

 

In my experience the USA is happy for you to kill yourself but draws the line at killing others.

No they don't, when the death is what they view as a consequence of freedom. A 5 year old accidentally shot and killed his 2 year old sister with the gun he got for his birthday a couple of years ago. No charges were laid. The grandmother said "it was god's will. It was time for her to go I guess." An American I spoke to said "yeah it's tragic, but it's the price of our freedom." This is pure idealistic libertarian BS. It doesn't work in a civilised society, and never has. There is a lot of the same style of mentality in the aviation scene, and if that mentality ever gets ingrained in Australia, it'll be sad day indeed. You do not cause other people's deaths or injury, or create unnecessary risk to their life, and simply fob it off as the price of freedom.

 

CASA pretty much doesn't care of sport aviators kill themselves (except when it suits them to make rules) or anyone silly enough to fly in the same aircraft with them.

What, like the 5 year old girl critically injured in the ultralight crash in Victoria last year? Stupid irresponsible 5 year olds. What shall we do with them?

 

What a stupid rigmarole and how well was the bloke looking out while transmitting his IFR plan? Was there other traffic simply transiting the area that he didn't hear?

Seriously? He had one time interval to give, his track was already known, his altitude was already known, and I gather it took him all of 20 seconds to get the radio call out. Yes it's a stupid rigmarole because if you're VFR you are not entitled to traffic information and can be refused such at the whim of the controller. How does that work? You're doing the right thing airmanship wise to increase your SA as far as potential traffic conflicts go, but you're not entitled to the information? Is that nuts, or is that nuts? Yet this is the system Dick always seemed to want, and that's what we got.

 

Dick has explained it many times - spend the money where it does the most good in terms of accidents prevented or lives saved. Resources are always limited so if you don't do this, the activity will be more dangerous than it needs to be.

I am all for progress, such as electronic flight planning, ADSB rollout, etc, etc. However I do not believe that there is convincing evidence that during his tenure he saw the money spent "where it does the most good". I and numerous others.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

How does extending class E airspace here in Australia make it any better for RAAus pilots? It will either exclude them from the airspace or cost them a transponder. Dick will get a better service at the cost of the little guys.We all have to justify our airspace and that's what RAPAC is for.

There will be solutions to this in the future with cheap ADSB in and out and air to air alert systems similar to FLARM but they are not here now.

 

Sorry Mike I did not intend to raise your blood pressure.

 

BTW I have operated gliders and GA extensively in the USA. Others possibly have to hence the snipe. Sorry

 

Cheers

 

Graham

No worries. The obvious solution is to have the Class E below 8500 (I'd prefer 10000 or 9500 maybe) without a transponder requirement. Still fixes the problem of IFR guys in IMC blundering around trying to self separate which is what Dick was talking about. When VMC you'll get anyone with a transponder and maybe the odd primary return although I suspect the software is normally just set to filter that out. That may be the reason for the transponder requirement here. Sometimes though it is best to settle for less than 100% solution to a perceived problem.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

[ Governments do have the ability to totally kill (and I mean totally kill, not just almost kill as it now stands) all forms of affordable recreational aviation just like they have the ability to upset any small subset of the population without consequence.

 

.

 

Yup and I know exactly how to do it (there's a precedent) whether you want to talk affordable or not. I'm sure not going to mention it anywhere on the internet in case anybody gets ideas.

 

 

[turboplanner]

There are plenty of precedents; most no longer valid in today's legislation.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Lol.No they don't, when the death is what they view as a consequence of freedom. A 5 year old accidentally shot and killed his 2 year old sister with the gun he got for his birthday a couple of years ago. No charges were laid. The grandmother said "it was god's will. It was time for her to go I guess." An American I spoke to said "yeah it's tragic, but it's the price of our freedom." This is pure idealistic libertarian BS. It doesn't work in a civilised society, and never has. There is a lot of the same style of mentality in the aviation scene, and if that mentality ever gets ingrained in Australia, it'll be sad day indeed. You do not cause other people's deaths or injury, or create unnecessary risk to their life, and simply fob it off as the price of freedom.

 

What, like the 5 year old girl critically injured in the ultralight crash in Victoria last year? Stupid irresponsible 5 year olds. What shall we do with them?

 

Seriously? He had one time interval to give, his track was already known, his altitude was already known, and I gather it took him all of 20 seconds to get the radio call out. Yes it's a stupid rigmarole because if you're VFR you are not entitled to traffic information and can be refused such at the whim of the controller. How does that work? You're doing the right thing airmanship wise to increase your SA as far as potential traffic conflicts go, but you're not entitled to the information? Is that nuts, or is that nuts? Yet this is the system Dick always seemed to want, and that's what we got.

 

I am all for progress, such as electronic flight planning, ADSB rollout, etc, etc. However I do not believe that there is convincing evidence that during his tenure he saw the money spent "where it does the most good". I and numerous others.

Mate, I'd happily ban anyone under 18 from setting foot in any kind of sports aircraft so this kind of emotive claptrap didn't happen. Somebody was responsible for the 5 year old girl being in the ultralight. Why for heaven's sake did they do that? Then again a 12 year old girl was killed when someone flew into power lines, licensed private pilot, standard GA aircraft AFAIK. Where do you draw the line?

 

I see you actually have a problem with the concept of freedom. I'm sorry for you. Once you start with regulation it is difficult to stop unless you have some kind of moral compass or philosophy. Engendering personal responsibility is more difficult but ultimately gives better results. What was the civilian helicopter accident rate in the US? 2.74 times ours and according to Bill Hamilton a similar situation exists in fixed wing GA.

 

I don't think Dick got the system he wanted. We got a start on an Australianised, bastardised version which should by now have been pretty much the US ATC system. Why the hell can't a controller under the circumstances you outline give the traffic? He suddenly could when the guy filed IFR? Wonderful. I think we're in furious agreement here and I'm pretty sure Dick Smith agrees.

 

I guess you never had to look at the budget and make the decisions. Talk is cheap and I suspect most people weren't across the issues or the details. Dick was in the hot seat. Frankly I can't fault what he tried to do in aviation regulation until getting shafted by John Anderson.

 

I find it amazing that after 22 years some people STILL haven't got over losing Flight Service.

 

 

[Nobody]

What was the civilian helicopter accident rate in the US? 2.74 times ours and according to Bill Hamilton a similar situation exists in fixed wing GA.

I dont want facts to get in the way of an argument but for fixed wing per hour flown the USA is slightly safer than OZ. Because the USA doesn't have the equivalent of RAAus you need to add these (taking into account the hours flown) from the Australian data to get a meaningful comparison.

 

Australia

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2014/ar-2014-084.aspx

 

USA

 

http://www.aopa.org/About-AOPA/General-Aviation-Statistics/General-Aviation-Safety-Record-Current-and-Historic

 

 

[rhysmcc]

In the USA in Class E you dont need a transponder except in a few cases( above 10,000 feet, or in class e that is above or under clsss C )

Couldn't that be considered the same here? We don't have Class E airspace other then under class C so you'd always need the transponder even if we want to those "rules"

 

 

[Happyflyer]

We are definitely losing our freedom bit by bit in Australia. I can still swim across the Murray without a life jacket but I can't row across in my unsinkable dingy without one. In some states an adult has to wear a life jacket, all the time in, any small to medium boat. I can't ride a bike without a helmet. Sure it is a bit safer but how many people does it stop riding and leading less healthy lives. It's the hi vis vest brigade going nuts. Life contains risks and we have to accept that. An adult should be able to make those decisions. There has to be a balance and currently we are over balancing. We are in danger of having to live in high vis bubble wrap.

 

In aviation we have the ASIC debacle. How many dollars for what result? The joke of having a ten foot high fence only going quarter of the way around country airports. How many millions for all those fences and gates for what result? We live in a nanny country and we can only blame ourselves. Think when you vote. Rant over.

 

 

[Birdseye]

Think when you vote. Rant over.

I don't think that was a rant. It's Dick that rants.

 

Incidentally, during the "oh FFS, let the idiot have a go at running it just to shut him up" phase, it took me about three hours to put together an exercise that showed Dick's airspace model would cause chaos in WA airspace. With only three radar sites in the whole state, blind Freddy could have saved me three hours work!

 

 

[Nobody]

Couldn't that be considered the same here? We don't have Class E airspace other then under class C so you'd always need the transponder even if we want to those "rules"

That is true but if I understand Dick Smith's plan correctly (not sure that I do) there would be more class E in areas that do not have class c above as it is in the USA. The other big difference between here and hte USA is that the size of the class c zones over there is much smaller making transits by VFR aircraft much easier.

 

 

[shags_j]

Couldn't that be considered the same here? We don't have Class E airspace other then under class C so you'd always need the transponder even if we want to those "rules"

Rhys: We have Class E under Class A as well. Not just C.

 

When I leave CTA (VFR) to fly into my home strip (in class G) the controllers will very often let me know what traffic there is (VFR or IFR) in the vicinity without prompting. Only today I heard a controller informing another plane leaving CTA of my (VFR) presence in class G. Why do some do this and others not?

Happy: Advising or not advising of VFR traffic are due to any number of factors. If you listen to the controllers for Ballina (120.3) they will always let the big guys know of any VFR's that look like that may get in the way of them. However remember you have to be identified for us to do that. If you are under 1,500 ft there we wouldn't necessarily see you. That's just one example of an aerodrome. Each area is completely different due traffic, airspace, controller workload etc. Ie. If an IFR flew into Caboolture I don't expect the ATC to tell him of each VFR in the area, he would probably be there all day...

 

 

[K-man]

I've only met Dick once and I found him to be a very interesting and genuine guy and a gracious host. If more people were like him we would be living in a much better place.