www.bindook.com, Feed Back on their site.
www.agacf.org
Feedback - Your Emails
Love us or hate us, send us your emails. We'll post them here - but
only if it suits us!
We may edit or alter your emails or twist the facts to suit our
agenda - just like Civil Air does. We reckon what's good for the goose is
good for the gander!
Max says :
I musty admit I had NO idea why anyone would want to setup a website
called bindook.com but after visiting your site I laughed and laughed. I
think I actually know EXACTLY what you are talking about. I've had the same
thing happen to me approaching SY from BIK !!! I don't bother anymore - now
I just "duck under" on the way to BK.
There's something (might be urban myth you've probably heard it but
here goes) that a United Pilot just prior to retirement and on his last
jaunt out of SY when switching from TWR -
Captain: "I like to thank you guys for being the second best ATC I
have ever seen."
Response from SY TWR: "Oh, thanks, by the way who's the first?"
Captain: "...The rest of the world! Seeya!"
bindook.com says :
Thanks for your email Max. In fact, thanks for kicking off the
bindook.com emails page!
And what an entirely appropriate email to start us off.
Here at bindook.com we realize that every week hundreds of Australian
pilots are forced to fly thousands of miles out of their way to avoid class
C and class D controlled airspace. The air traffic controllers are entirely
oblivious to this - they think they're doing a great job!
For kicking us off we're sending you a $50 Jeppesen voucher courtesy
of bindook.com and Jeppesen Australia.
David says :
Well, back from Temora... what a great day. I agree completely... I
also believe class E to be functional and safe, as most competent pilots who
use it probably do. Aussie ATC are (generally but not always) just a bunch
of lazy gits as far as I'm concerned... if it's looks too hard, or could be
the slightest pain in the arse to them, it probably is so why even try??!!!!
bindook.com says :
Thanks David. We don't know why there is such a fuss about class E
airspace either.
At bindook.com we know that class E airspace procedures have been in
use in the USA and in Europe for years. These procedures work just fine
overseas - so why can't they work in Australia?
We reckon class E can work in Australia - in fact we reckon the only
thing that could stop class E from working in Australia would be a
deliberate industrial campaign by Civil Air and its members to make class E
fail. Lets just hope they don't point too many planes at each other in the
process!
Thanks again David and safe flying!
Walrus 7 says :
Please allow me to add my own opinions regarding the NAS implementation.
I am no friend of Ted Lang and the Goebbels-like misinformation being spewed
out by the Civil Air propaganda ministry. Lies, damn lies and statistics ...
nary a word of merit have we heard. Supported, of course, by the commercial
pilots who are also screaming 'unclean' when confronted with the simple
truth about E-class near-misses.
Mr Lang, I ask with respect and my tongue firmly in my cheek, why were you
not screaming so loud about TCAS resolutions that were occurring in C class
airspace before the NAS began? Oh, of course, the airspace in which the
incidents occurred was under the control of Civil Air members, wasn't it.
So, are we to presume that TCAS resolutions that occur in C class airspace
are safer than those that occur in E class airspace? Or is it just that
Civil Air members contribute to TCAS resolutions in a more professional
manner than us grotty little amateurs?
For most, I think that ATCs are a pretty genuine lot ... but their union (as
unions do) is tainting them rapidly by carrying on like a pork chop (I have
never actually seen a pork chop carry on but I'm told it's not pretty) and
harping about the importance of statistics that have been blatantly selected
to help push their barrow. But what about the reams of other stats that
prove you wrong, Mr Lang? I dare you to compare the TCAS incidents before
and after NAS then issue a press release on the outcome.
bindook.com says :
An excellent point Walrus, and one that had not escaped us here at
bindook.com.
Class C (and class A) TCAS RAs happen because a member of Civil Air screwed
up. You don't see Civil Air putting out press releases or getting on
talk-back radio to advertise these RAs because it reflects poorly on their
members.
In complete contrast, Civil Air have been telling anyone who'll listen how
TCAS RAs in class E are highly perilous near-death events that are somehow
nothing to do with the performance of Civil Air members.
We agree that Civil Air are only telling half the story, and even then we
reckon they're telling porkies.
Thanks for an excellent email Walrus.
Mike says :
Congratulations! Go for it. I was on a RAPAC for 5 years and after that
experience I don't have a lot of time for ATC and its personnel (not that I
had a lot before).
A bunch of controllers in the US are about to retire according to Avweb. Why
don't we invite them here? They probably wouldn't notice the difference
between working ATC in Aus and retirement.
Better still lets just contract Australian aviation regulation to FAA. They
could have a few sparsely staffed field offices, we'd save the headquarters
overhead and save a lot of money and aggravation.
bindook.com says :
Thanks for your words of encouragement Mike.
We think your suggestion to invite some FAA controllers to come over and
show Civil Air's members how the rest of the world does things is an
excellent idea. The current crop of Australian controllers reckon they are
unable to work with NAS because of what they refer to as "cultural
incompatibilities". If that's the case then let's get some "culturally
compatible" FAA controllers over to show the Civil Air guys how it's done.
If Civil Air's members are not up to the job then let's replace them with
people who are.
Your suggestion reminds us of the wise words of a well-known Australian
commercial pilot and elder statesman who, at a time when Sydney (Mascot) was
alleged to be hopelessly slot constrained due to runway capacity, said at a
RAPAC meeting :
"If Sydney air traffic control was run by FAA controllers they'd move a
dozen flying schools in to take up the slack in runway capacity!"
Safe flying Mike, and thanks again.
Peter says :
When I flew around very busy Seattle in '96, I could not get over how
helpful their ATC was, unlike here. We accidentally penetrated controlled
airspace and were politely told which way to turn and told to have a nice
day! If we wanted to go in class C airspace, they said "no problem, what's
your 'plane type". No flight plans: just asked! Try that here!
Hopefully when NAS is fully implemented in Oz, the US ATC attitude will come
with it.
bindook.com says :
We hope so too Peter, but you'll forgive us if we don't hold our breath.
Air traffic controllers in the USA are famous for their "can do" attitude.
In contrast, the Australian experience is typified by : "Remain outside
controlled airspace - clearance not available."
Perhaps we need those FAA controllers that Mike (above) was talking about
even more than we realize!
Legendary tuff guy George Smilovic might have said :
"How many NAS stages does it take to change an air traffic controller?
None - but the controller's got to really WANT to change."
Thanks for sharing your experience of the US National Airspace System Peter.
Bill Hamilton says :
Dear bindook,
Most appropriate choice of name, in my memory banks inextricably linked to
the difficulty of achieving any change and modernization in the Australia
aviation scene, unless it's more rules, regulations and restrictions.
I don't know whether you are aware, but in the early '60's, Bindook and Mt.
McQuoid were the first of the VOR's. Australian domestic pilots threatened
strike action if these dangerous new fangled devices were turned on.
The objections were really quite hilarious, except that the AFAP (except the
Overseas Branch) were actually serious.
Objections included how easy it would be to select a wrong frequency. How
was any normal pilot going to cope with 90 frequencies , instead of six,
sometimes marked, A,B,C,D,E and F? Just a recipe for disaster.
From memory, at that stage only about 5 or 6 LOC frequencies were used for
every ILS and VAR in the country, with only two used for ILS, 109.7
"primary" and 109.9 " secondary". Thus, the "primary " runway in Sydney was
07, so the ILS was 109.7, and there was also the luxury of the little short
runway, 16, also having an ILS.
But wait, there's more. How could pilots be expected to select a thing
called a radial, that was what the aeroplanes were powered by, radials were
engines from Wright or Pratt and Whitney, not some thing a "normal" pilot
could be expected to read off a chart and dial in a window. Just think, at
least 360 ways of getting it wrong. And then there was the little white
arrowhead, the possibilities for error were endless, better just stick to
what we know, ADF, 200mc AWA DME and VAR.
And so it has always been, with any change but a pay rise being stoutly
resisted as a threat to Australia's safety record.
Hence, with the first introduction of class E airspace along the NSW coast,
regionals to Ballina were flying up to the Evans Head R, and descending from
class C to class G, to avoid this new class E nonsense. Why would any safety
conscious real professional pilot forgo the tried and true Flight Service
Directed Traffic Information, and experiment with a new fangled RAS or RIS,
after all, we had only had radar since 1938.
Now we have the trotting out in public of something variously called
"commercial" or "professional" airspace, presumably from which
"non-commercial" or non ( perhaps that should be un- , but that would
exclude many pilots who get paid to fly) professional operations would be
excluded. One of the wonderful criteria for this is suggested to be whether
a pilot holds a first class medical or not. Presumably it is well
recognized, world wide, that not holding a first class medical is THE
leading cause of mid-airs.
One thing Mick Toller got right was the notion that domestic aviation in
Australia was a sort of a Galapagos, having developed (if that is the right
word, perhaps mutated) in all sorts of strange directions, in splendid
isolation from the real word.
Keep up the good work.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton,
40 + years in the real world of aviation.
bindook.com says :
Welcome to bindook.com Bill, and thanks for your kind words.
As someone who has extensive experience flying throughout the world we
reckon you ought to know a thing or two about how good the airspace
procedures are overseas.
Here at bindook.com we realize that the unique Australian procedures evolved
in splendid isolation. But aviation is an international industry and the
reasons for international harmonization are as wide-ranging as they are
compelling.
We also recognize that fear and human nature causes people to automatically
resist change, as you have most ably (and amusingly) pointed out.
We reckon that NAS will finally give Australian pilots the chance to soar
like eagles, instead of continuing to exist as Galapagos ducks.
Thanks again Bill - we look forward to your ongoing contributions.
Andrew says :
Guys keep up the good work there at www.bindook.com.
bindook.com says :
Thanks Andrew. Wilco!
Ron Lawford says :
Bindook, I read your comments on the Lancair / 737 incident, and I agree
with them.
The major problem we have with E airspace in Australia is that pilots of
VFR aircraft are discouraged from being on the "IFR" frequency when in E,
and are discouraged from speaking up on that frequency when they detect a
possible conflict.
Hopefully the new charts issued by AsA will overcome the first of these
problems, and the second problem --encouraging VFR pilots to listen, and
talk on the Centre frequency when a possible conflict occurs - can be
solved by education.
However, all this may become of historical interest only if E over D
disappears in August.
I would like to see a concerted campaign to ensure that E over D remains,
along with VFR pilots listening on Centre frequencies. Those frequencies
must be on the VFR charts.
bindook.com says :
Thanks for your email Ron, and welcome to bindook.com.
We would agree with any suggestion that where an air traffic radar service
is already provided for the benefit of airline traffic VFR pilots should -
at their sole discretion - be able to request a dynamic workload-permitting
radar information service.
But we would disagree with any suggestion that pilot-to-pilot chatter is
appropriate on air traffic control frequencies.
We agree that pilot education is very important. There is a cultural issue
involved and major cultural change is now required. Look out for the
"culture" feature in the June edition of bindook.com.
If you are not happy with the aeronautical charts from your current supplier
then you should probably change suppliers.
In general we'd like to see as much fair-dinkum ICAO class G airspace as
possible - ie no service, no charge, no delays. Where this is not possible
due to traffic density (ie hardly anywhere in Australia) we support the use
of the lowest possible level of airspace classification. Naturally, we'd
rather have class E than class D.
Overseas hundreds of airline jets manage to fly safely in and out of "G over
D" and "E over D" airports every day of the week. We fail to understand why
E over D can't work in Australia.
Walrus 7 says :
As the debate about the abolition of class E over class D rages like a
Gippsland bushfire, I have done some ferreting around myself and found the
following statements.
From the Civil Air website :
"The Airservices Australia Board will dump the discredited E-class airspace
regime around capital airports from November, however has saddled regional
Australia with the remnants of the National Airspace System experiment."
From the Airservices Australia website :
"We have also conducted a wider review of the implementation of NAS and will
be testing further options over the coming months before making any
recommendations. These include :
(a) the reclassification of portions of Class E airspace around Class C and
Class D towers to ensure the 3 degree aircraft flight profile for approach
to these aerodromes is captured as Class C Airspace.
(b) the reclassification of Class E airspace above flight level 125 to Class
C, in addition to (a) above."
Civil Air have stated that Airservices 'will dump' but Airservices are
saying that they will recommend. 'Recommend' infers that they have to put
the actual decision in the hands of a third party. Is this DOTARS or CASA?
Why is Civil Air so sure it will be dumped when the 'dumpers' are not? Is it
that Civil Air have no valid arguments so they revert to emotive language :
'discredited', 'regime', 'saddled'.
The way I see it is that Airservices don't have the power to dump anything;
they can only recommend. Have I read this correctly?
bindook.com says :
As a trade union, Civil Air have a long and illustrious track record of
huffing and puffing in their attempts to blow the house down. One must take
anything Civil Air says with a very large grain of salt.
You may be interested in the contents of the joint John Anderson / Nick
Minchin media release A45/2004 :
CHANGES TO AIRSPACE REGULATION IN AUSTRALIA
New arrangements for the management of Australian airspace were jointly
announced today by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and
Regional Services, John Anderson, and the Minister for Finance and
Administration, Senator Nick Minchin.
"The transfer of the airspace regulatory function to an Airspace Directorate
within the Department of Transport and Regional Services is another step in
a process of regulatory reform that has already occurred in the Civil
Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)," Mr Anderson said.
Mr Anderson said it was not appropriate for a commercial service provider
such as Airservices to also have a regulatory role, particularly when its
decisions about the designation of air routes and the classification of
airspace could have profound effects on the costs borne by users of our
airspace.
"This will complete the separation of regulatory functions from operational
activity begun with the creation of Airservices and CASA in 1995.
"The new Airspace Authority, to be created within the Department of
Transport and Regional Services, will concentrate on safe and efficient use
of airspace in the context of a safety regulatory regime established by
CASA. That safety regime, CASR Part 71, is in the process of finalisation
and its coming into force will determine the timetable for the actual
transfer of the regulatory function from Airservices.
"Enabling legislation will also be required and this will be introduced into
the Parliament as soon as possible. In the meantime, Airservices will
continue to perform the airspace regulatory function, but will establish
internal procedures to ensure that its regulatory activities are clearly
separated from its operational air traffic control activities," Mr Anderson
said.
The Minister for Finance and Administration, Senator Nick Minchin, noted
that the separation of the regulatory function would permit Airservices to
concentrate on its primary role, the safe and effective provision of air
traffic control and aviation rescue and firefighting services for Australia.
"The focus of Airservices on its prime responsibilities will be further
assisted by the Government's decision to designate Airservices as a
Government Business Enterprise (GBE)," Senator Minchin said.
All of us here at bindook.com applaud John Anderson and Nick Minchin for
taking this vital step.
Having Airservices Australia (a profit-making government monopoly) in charge
of managing airspace policy makes about as much sense as putting a company
that manufactures traffic lights in charge of deciding which road
intersections need traffic lights!
Airservices Australia will now be able to concentrate on the day to day
provision of air traffic control and aviation fire fighting services, while
the high level policy decisions can be taken at a more appropriate level.
Bravo John Anderson and Nick Minchin!
bindook.com comment 28 May 2004 :
What a week it's been!
In the last seven days bindook.com has had over 8,000 hits, has been
hyperlinked from 14 different internet forums (that we know of) and has
generated a great deal of discussion. What's truly amazing is that it's all
been through word of mouth - we haven't done ANY advertising.
We're absolutely delighted.
We've received a large volume of very positive feedback.
Several writers have inquired about problems accessing bindook.com. We know
how keen everyone is to view our website, but we've chosen to implement a
selective access policy. Why? Because we can!
Firstly, anyone who we identify as an air traffic controller will be
presented with an error page like this :
Clearance not available.
Remain outside controlled airspace.
We reckon it's important for air traffic controllers to have a taste of
their own medicine.
From what we can figure out the more we ban them the more they throw
themselves at our website trying to get access. We consider this rather
ironic and highly amusing.
Also, we've blocked most of the computers connected to the Airservices
Australia and CASA networks. We reckon that government employees using
government computers and government communications networks should be
spending their government time doing government work - not fooling around on
the internet.
From what we can figure out it seems that all some people at AsA / CASA do
all day is try to find ways to access bindook.com! Get back to work you
slack bastards!
Some correspondents have asked if we've blocked everyone from a particular
public access internet forum. Nothing could be further from the truth. We
welcome visitors from any and all public forums and you are more than
welcome to use embedded hyperlinks if you wish.
And finally, a number of emails have asked about our rolling Learjets. They
were inspired by Bobby Younkin's Lear 23 aerobatic routine. (Please don't
try this at home...)
Here at bindook.com we're all very busy putting the final touches to the
next edition. We're planning a bumper issue that's due for release on 15
June.
Thanks to everyone for your continuing support.
bindook.com Keeping the bastards honest!
ted_...@civilair.asn.au says :
Subject: Picture of Ted Lang
I was directed to your posts on bindook.com.
Whilst I support anyone having an opinion and the right to express it, I
feel your portrayal of me with a "doctored" mug-shot a bit beyond good
humour.
I hereby appeal to your own sense of fair-play and request that you remove
the pictures.
Thank you.
Ted Lang
bindook.com says :
We wondered how long it would take for you to contact us, Ted. In fact,
we've been running an office sweep!
You've never struck us as the shy type, and we can't understand why you'd
object to your photo with a caption saying :
CIVIL AIR AUSTRALIA
LANG, EDWARD
1800-359 007 29-02-2004
Being the proud, card-carrying trade unionist that you are we thought you'd
be pleased to be associated with Civil Air.
But since you seem to have lost your nerve and have gone all coy on us we've
removed your photo, as requested.
Perhaps in the same sense of "fair play" you might agree to stop telling
fibs about airspace procedures. That'd be fair, wouldn't it Ted? It's just
that we feel that telling fibs about airspace procedures is a bit beyond
good humour. Go on Ted - we dare you! See if you can go for just one month
without telling fibs about airspace. (We'll be running another office
sweep.)
We find it extremely interesting and somewhat telling that the only thing on
bindook.com that you find disagreeable enough to mention is that your photo
is not to your liking. Does this mean that we have your tacit concurrence on
everything else?
READER COMPETITION : How many days do you think Ted Lang can go without
telling fibs about airspace procedures? There's a $50 Jeppesen voucher for
the first correct entry. Only one entry per email address please, winner to
be determined entirely at the discretion of the bindook.com adjudication
committee, no correspondence will be entered into.
Email your entries to bin...@bindook.com . (cc to
ted_...@civilair.asn.au if you wish)
Been mucked around by air traffic control? Sick of flying miles out
of your way to avoid controlled airspace? Air traffic control treated you
like a second class citizen? Got an air traffic control horror story?
Email it to :
Next time a controller threatens to muck you around tell them you'll
bindook.com 'em!
Mozart
a web site. This web site reinforces that premise.
Like ex-girlfriends, I'm not sure we how we really feel about them until we
are apart. It's a little bit like airspace. I liked the way things were.
C'mon AOPA... do something.
"There is no emoticon to describe how I'm feeling right now".
Moz.
"www.agacf.org" wrote in message