Dick's latest rant

[Old Koreelah]

OK. Yes that may be true and Humpty Doo looks better than ever. Its a place with wet and dry seasons with a non reliable "WET" and a damaged underground (artesian) supply from the New Guinea Highlands..

A fascinating idea Nev, but is there any evidence for this persistent myth?

One source challenges the whole idea of aquifers like the Great Artesian Basin being recharged at all.

 

He reckons most of the water is plutonic and is fast being used up.

 

The Plutonic Waters of the Great Artesian Basin

 

December 2000

 

By Emeritus Professor Lance Endersbee AO FTSE

 

 

[facthunter]

It's been contaminated by mining and wasted by not capping many drillings/wells. They just run all the time. The PNG source has not been disputed generally as far as I know ( The Torres straight is only about 200 feet deep on average) and the drought in the highlands is well documented. Many inhabitants see it as essential to the areas survival. ONE SOURCE putting up a theory is not enough to convince me of much. PERSISTENT MYTH seems to outright deny the possibility of it's validity at all.

 

We seem to be able to "find" experts to advance just about any possibility these days. You can analyse water and compare trace characteristics to identify sources. I thought that had already been done.Aborigines have always known where the reliable springs were. People have been warning of overuse and contamination for years. At the present time the fracking move has been opposed. by people who see it as damaging an asset they see as vital to the area. I would support that position. also. Central Australia has been getting more arid for a long time. The Artesian BASIN needs to be looked after as well as ALL of our acquifers .Australia is a very dry place overall..Nev

 

 

[Ignition]

Our country is more (demographically) like Canada than USA. Does Canada use the USA model?

For the most part yes, but there are some slight differences (some due to the Magnetic North Pole/True North Pole for example.)

 

Thanks, KazSo the USA system relies heavily on a much bigger, more exy radar network. Not going to happen in Aus. (Unless we cut subsidising casa and spend that money on safety infrastructure)

Not really something to worry about in Aus. For Australia to have the desired E over C, it's basically just the re-categorisation of a section of current Class C airspace that is needed (ie. the top tier of the upside down wedding cake) around cities that already exists; this airspace already has radar coverage. For airspace specifically, we aren't hugely dissimilar, it's just that one layer of the cake that makes the difference. Population Density plays a big part, take Canada for example which has far more Class G airspace. Outback Australia wouldn't suddenly be forced to switch from G to E down low unless there became a need for it with 600,000 pilots flying around in localised areas as there are in the USA, so realistically from what I can tell, not much would change with regards to that - class G would still be class G until it's busy enough to become anything else.

 

Basically the most notable change would be removing the road blocks in the J curve on the East Coast, so that pilots aren't forced over dangerous terrain and are able to plan an efficient flight.

 

Two examples:

 

Currently -

 

- Imagine you're in flight from Kempsey to Grafton, Grafton is your home base, there is forecast cloud on the mountains but the coast is clear, if you hold a CTA Endorsement you proceed to Coffs and request clearance but get told to remain OCTA for the moment, you just want to get home, you consider skirting around the edge of the airspace, you know there is at least 500ft of altitude you can use between you and the ground, but there is still the risk of cloud just to the west. There are a few options, don't fly in the first place (but its clear on the coast), you can return to Kempsey (waste of fuel, time, money), you can wait for clearance (waste of fuel, time, money), you can skirt around the edge (potentially fatal). If you don't hold a CTA Endorsement, that reduces your options significantly.

 

With E over C -

 

- Imagine you're in flight from Kempsey to Grafton, Grafton is your home base, there is forecast cloud on the mountains but the coast is clear, you don't even hold a CTA Endorsement (or you do, but in this case it makes no difference), you stick to your plan and fly directly over Coffs at say 9500ft in clear skies, no clearance necessary and no impact on IFR traffic (ATC are dealing with them the exact same way they do now). You're observing the cloud down to the left of you that isn't a hazard, you land safely at Grafton, no fuel, time or money wasted. No get-there-itis. Just a safe flight that went to plan.

 

Or Currently -

 

- Imagine you're in flight from Moruya to Wagga, there is 15 knots of wind but otherwise it's a nice day, if you hold a CTA Endorsement you proceed wanting a clearance to continue direct, a distance of 138nm, but are denied and you now have four options, wait for clearance, return to Moruya, go around Canberra airspace to the South (dangerous terrain, 15kts you'll probably see experience some mountain waves, and the distance is now 185nm), go around Canberra airspace to the North (safer terrain, distance is now 190nm) 1.5x your planned flight distance, 1.5x the cost. 1.5x the fatigue.

 

With E over C -

 

- Imagine you're in flight from Moruya to Wagga, you proceed on your plan at say 8500ft, in class E over Canberra. You can see traffic in the distance on descent and climbing out past you in line with the runway, but they aren't a concern because they aren't directly above the airport. You land safely at Wagga.

 

Or the real world example that Dick tends to talk about, VH-MDX.

 

Don't like being forced down too close to ground. My instructor always warned me to stay away from the edges of the sky.

Ironically, the E over C would solve that by adding the option of flying over at, in the examples above, 8500+ as opposed to skirting around the airspace under the steps.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...We seem to be able to "find" experts to advance just about any possibility these days...

That's no doubt true Nev, but this bloke should not be ignored. Prof. Endersbee was globally recognised for his unmatched understanding of rock formations and associated sciences. I didn't agree with him on several topics, but we all lose if we don't listen to dissident voices in science.

 

...The Artesian BASIN needs to be looked after as well as ALL of our acquifers .Australia is a very dry place overall..Nev

I totally agree, as did Lance Endersbee. He was more concerned about our deep aquifers than most- his research led him to conclude that they are not a renewable resource; that they aren't being replenished in the way conventional wisdom would have it.

 

 

[kaz3g]

<a huge snip>...Ironically, the E over C would solve that by adding the option of flying over at, in the examples above, 8500+ as opposed to skirting around the airspace under the steps.

Dick has made no mention of any variation of E limits from the 1200' level and transponders (ADSB?) will be mandatory. A lot of gliders, antique aeroplanes and ultralights don't have the power source to run a Tx so they will have not much sky to fly in as best as I can figure it.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Dick has made no mention of any variation of E limits from the 1200' level and transponders (ADSB?) will be mandatory. A lot of gliders, antique aeroplanes and ultralights don't have the power source to run a Tx so they will have not much sky to fly in as best as I can figure it.Kaz

Somehow they manage that in the US so I'm sure we could find a way.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Again I say we can't expect to only adopt a part of somebody else's successful system and expect success. For instance if we go the USA way we would have to adopt the whole scheme including all the bells and whistles that they have. EG: more radar and ATC - much bigger than we have now. And the upper layer of what we presently call "G" (is Dick pushing for E over C?). Do we have enough traffic to warrant the infrastructure expense?

 

 

[Aldo]

Again I say we can't expect to only adopt a part of somebody else's successful system and expect success. For instance if we go the USA way we would have to adopt the whole scheme including all the bells and whistles that they have. EG: more radar and ATC - much bigger than we have now. And the upper layer of what we presently call "G" (is Dick pushing for E over C?). Do we have enough traffic to warrant the infrastructure expense?

Absolutely correct and the other part is who is going to pay for all of the increased radar and services, the same people who complain about the cost of RAA and also the rest of us.

 

Dick is all about Dick and no-one else

 

 

[Aldo]

Or the real world example that Dick tends to talk about, VH-MDX.

MDX is total pilot error, should never have left the Gold Coast with the reported vacuum pump issues that he apparently had (AH wasn't working correctly prior to landing at the GC). Additional to that (if I remember correctly and I may be wrong) Williamtown wouldn't issue a clearance because Sydney wasn't VMC and wouldn't accept an onwards clearance. MDX had plenty of options to land and wait out the weather the pilot elected to continue with the flight and 5 people died.

 

Classic case of passenger pressure to get us home.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Somehow they manage that in the US so I'm sure we could find a way.

Pilots in small aircraft in the US have access to much less expensive options than CASA has given us here. They also have radar and ATC coverage that we can only dream of.

 

They enjoy a regulatory system that is light touch, easily read and understood, and encourages aviation rather than punishing those that pursue it. The cost of flying there is consequently significantly lower.

 

Mandating radio and transponders will drive more of us away.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

i liked and agree with what Dick Smith said. By far, the most dangerous thing I do in flying is to fly unnecessarily low over the Adelaide hills to leave TOTALLY UNUSED airspace above me. This at the dictates of a so-called "safety" authority.

 

There are even worse examples in Australia.

 

 

[kaz3g]

i liked and agree with what Dick Smith said. By far, the most dangerous thing I do in flying is to fly unnecessarily low over the Adelaide hills to leave TOTALLY UNUSED airspace above me. This at the dictates of a so-called "safety" authority.There are even worse examples in Australia.

Not sure what part of the Adelaide Hills you refer to Bruce, but you have 4500 until entering the Class D into Parafield.

 

The overlaying C for Adelaide won't change as best I can see, even if Dick's desires re E come into effect so I don't see his plan helping there, either. It will have an effect at CTAFs outside of controlled airspace but at a cost.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Better have another look at the Adelaide VTC Kaz. Class G only to 2500 around YPPF class D.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Better have another look at the Adelaide VTC Kaz. Class G only to 2500 around YPPF class D.

Yes, I should have said until the VFR reporting points. Sorry.

 

But the fact remains that, under Dick's proposals (as best as anyone can pin him down to detail) a move to E would not impact on controlled tower operations in C.

 

What you might see is E coming down to a lower level than 1200 beneath the C rather than the current G.

 

One of the problems is pinning him down to provide detail rather than self-serving statements derogatory of anyone with a contrary opinion. Another is that all aircraft will need to be fitted with Tx for the system to have a chance of working and my bet is that this would be ADSB. That's an expense I would not want to face.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I was referring to the outer part of the 4500 ft step.It runs from Mt Pleasant through Callington etc and goes all the way to Mannum on the river.

 

At Mount Pleasant, the step could be raised to 6500 on the outer part with no effect on West Beach traffic. The airspace is unused right now and has been since DC4's and probably not even then.

 

But it would enable VFR planes at Mount Pleasant to have enough height to glide to a safe landing spot in the event of engine failure.

 

This was put into a submission to RAPAC ( the airspace advisory group) with so far no written reply. I did hear that it was rejected for vague reasons. My guess is that they were not going to move Important Lines on Official Maps for the likes of no-account people like me. And reducing controlled airspace would impact on their budget arguments. Safety? Don't be silly. Who cares about safety?

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Yes, I should have said until the VFR reporting points. Sorry.But the fact remains that, under Dick's proposals (as best as anyone can pin him down to detail) a move to E would not impact on controlled tower operations in C.

 

What you might see is E coming down to a lower level than 1200 beneath the C rather than the current G.

 

One of the problems is pinning him down to provide detail rather than self-serving statements derogatory of anyone with a contrary opinion. Another is that all aircraft will need to be fitted with Tx for the system to have a chance of working and my bet is that this would be ADSB. That's an expense I would not want to face.

 

Kaz

Kaz, you keep on saying, as fact, that all aircraft would be required to have a transponder in E under Dick’s proposal. Is this a scare tactic to put people off it?

As I understand his proposal, it is US class E and that has no requirement for transponders. This has been pointed out to you before. Where do you get your information about making transponders mandatory from?

 

 

[coljones]

Kaz, you keep on saying, as fact, that all aircraft would be required to have a transponder in E under Dick’s proposal. Is this a scare tactic to put people off it?As I understand his proposal, it is US class E and that has no requirement for transponders. This has been pointed out to you before. Where do you get your information about making transponders mandatory from?

If you go only half way and institute Oz style Espace from 1200 feet you will require transponders from 1200 feet. Is this what Dick wants or does he want transponder less Espace. (I don't think CASA, AirServices or RPT would like that). Dick Smith does not make policy for aviation in Australia. The cautionary approach would cast the worst case scenario!!!

 

 

[Happyflyer]

If you go only half way and institute Oz style Espace from 1200 feet you will require transponders from 1200 feet. Is this what Dick wants or does he want transponder less Espace. (I don't think CASA, AirServices or RPT would like that). Dick Smith does not make policy for aviation in Australia. The cautionary approach would cast the worst case scenario!!!

Of course Dick doesn’t make aviation policy for Australia (unless he goes back CASA again). He is entitled to put his view out there as are we all. I don’t think CASA and ASA are doing such a wonderful job that we should not discuss change, and copying a successful system is one avenue of discussion. The most cautionary approach of course would be to kill GA by over regulation, which many believe is happening.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Life-saving heart transplant prevented due to ‘air safety technicality’

[Kyle Communications]

There is a audio file at the bottom..its worth a listen

 

 

[kaz3g]

Kaz, you keep on saying, as fact, that all aircraft would be required to have a transponder in E under Dick’s proposal. Is this a scare tactic to put people off it?As I understand his proposal, it is US class E and that has no requirement for transponders. This has been pointed out to you before. Where do you get your information about making transponders mandatory from?

I don't employ scare tactics . I just try to make sense of what is being put forward.

 

Following Dick's statements and trying to give some cohesion to them is not easy, at least I haven't found it so, At no point does he provide a clear, articulate and complete proposal; it comes out in disjointed bits. If you have been following the discussion on the other site, you will have seen one contributor doing his best to nail Dick down to the details.

 

Despite his affection for the US and Canadian systems (which are different) Dick also seems to favour Australian variations.

 

It was under Dick's management that Tx were introduced to E originally and he seems to be arguing for more E on the basis of IFR receiving all traffic details. To me, that means Tx's.

 

Personally, I can't see any chance of the Tx requirement in E being lifted but can envisage ADSB becoming mandated for all aircraft using that airspace if it is expanded as proposed.

 

That's how I see it.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Happyflyer]

I don't employ scare tactics . I just try to make sense of what is being put forward.Following Dick's statements and trying to give some cohesion to them is not easy, at least I haven't found it so, At no point does he provide a clear, articulate and complete proposal; it comes out in disjointed bits. If you have been following the discussion on the other site, you will have seen one contributor doing his best to nail Dick down to the details.

 

Despite his affection for the US and Canadian systems (which are different) Dick also seems to favour Australian variations.

 

It was under Dick's management that Tx were introduced to E originally and he seems to be arguing for more E on the basis of IFR receiving all traffic details. To me, that means Tx's.

 

Personally, I can't see any chance of the Tx requirement in E being lifted but can envisage ADSB becoming mandated for all aircraft using that airspace if it is expanded as proposed.

 

That's how I see it.

 

Kaz

I’m a VFR pilot. I would be against any change that brings in more cost. There is no doubt if E was lowered so all IFR aircraft were in controlled airspace down to 700ft agl, some in CASA and the IFR world would push for transponders for VFR aircraft. There is no justifiable safety case because the evidence is there in the US system that you don’t have to. However we seem to love over regulation so who knows. In the mean time I’ll continue to fly GA and RAAus, and love it.

 

 

[coljones]

I’m a VFR pilot. I would be against any change that brings in more cost. There is no doubt if E was lowered so all IFR aircraft were in controlled airspace down to 700ft agl, some in CASA and the IFR world would push for transponders for VFR aircraft. There is no justifiable safety case because the evidence is there in the US system that you don’t have to. However we seem to love over regulation so who knows. In the mean time I’ll continue to fly GA and RAAus, and love it.

I think we are all on the same page.

 

 

[Frankus1aust]

In a practical sense He's probably too lazy to bother doing something which has nothing IN it for HIM. The inland rail might be his baby. Whether that's viable or not is a question to consider. It's all politics not reason. Transport & Infrastructure.? Flying little ultralights with 2 people max in them must be in there somewhere? How many votes in that for bananaboy.?. the CWA of new England and the Club and Pub set don't fly ultralights. Nev

True and all the more reason to collectively shout the house down. A consistent campaign required. Dedicated facebook site, bulk emails to his office, letters, press lobbying, industry bodies direct representation, and public support from media opinion leaders. Trawling the industry groups and individuals to put a working group together is needed so a very specific set of aims and ambitions can be decided and focused upon. Not CASA bashing but a reform partnership. If we don't make this a noisy issue the minister will do nothing.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

True and all the more reason to collectively shout the house down. A consistent campaign required. Dedicated facebook site, bulk emails to his office, letters, press lobbying, industry bodies direct representation, and public support from media opinion leaders. Trawling the industry groups and individuals to put a working group together is needed so a very specific set of aims and ambitions can be decided and focused upon. Not CASA bashing but a reform partnership. If we don't make this a noisy issue the minister will do nothing.

Excellent thinking ... so what have you done about it so far?