Williamtown Procedures

[Dick Smith]

Tried to fly up the Willy coastal lane today in the Agusta. First time in about 12 months. What a totally amateurish system. I have said in the past that the Controllers are as good as any in the world however their leadership is non existent. Still using 1950's procedures.

Cloud was 2800' scattered with 10km+ visibility. Visual approaches for 12 announced on the ATIS.

After calling at Nobbies at 500' I was given a clearance with a limit of Stockton bridge - then instructed to hold at the wreck. Soon after another VFR aircraft requested a clearance but was told to hold at Nobbies.

The problem? I think it was caused by an air ambulance aircraft on approach to 12.

In five flights around the world I have never experienced a similar situation other than in Australia-twice in fact. - once at Darwin and once at Williamtown.

In other countries the tower controls the airspace to the control boundary at low levels fo obvious reasons.

Or if you are in C in visual conditions under radar they use target resolution procedures.

But not in Australia. We managed to get Tower Airspace in at Canberra and it works really well but their has never ever been anyone in the Military ATC non decision makers to make a decision.

The military ATC 's are treated as if they are irresponsible children and not allowed to make judgements that ATC 's in other countries make dozens of time a day.No wonder they have difficulty in getting enough recruits here.

If I was in the Military I would have a really low morale as it's obvious that only the incompetents get into high positions. There is clearly no one with the leadership ability to make sure the coalface personal have the most modern and safest procedures.

It's the same level of competence that made the $1.2billion Super Seasprite stuff up

[fmcinop]

Holding for priority traffic......more than justified I think.

I do agree that Willy, Townsville and Darwin are all as bad as each other though. Some of the worst and most inefficient procedures in place in all three airports.

The only airport with a worst record is Sydney, but thats an entirely different story....Speed up, slow down, turn left, turn right, change of runway...not into wind.. oops now speed up, sorry another change of runway, gee now slow down.. now hold... now max speed track shortening final change of runway, take first high speed and hold for 10 minutes.

[Super Cecil]

Give it a rest whingers. If it was at a CTAF then there would have been no problem, aircraft talking to aircraft. Throw in Willy ATC and two aircraft in the area becomes too hard.

Porch monkey and and fulla bull, you blokes had a hard day in the tower? Time for some Dick bashing is it? :8

[Dick Smith]

Come on you have to do better than that. The other aircraft was 4 miles away at the other side of the airport with fifty miles of visibility.

The two aircraft that were be held orbiting at low level over a rough ocean were not going anywhere near the airport. So do really believe they should be held for an aircraft that was? Why?

Shows you military blokes will do everything you can to resist change and never copy better proven procedures from others.

You deserve to have low morale. Remember that 1.2 billion dollars lost by your own peoples incompetence is one of the reasons you can't get proper pay - it all comes out of the military budget.

[Bill Pike]

How shrill the debate gets when Dick ventures an opinion!
As a Hunter Valley resident I suffer military ATC intransigence regularly. Just last week I had to pick my way up the "inland corridor" in marginal weather near Gloucester because, in VMC closer to the airport, Willy had "an aircraft on approach". My mate Mick Hutchins still rests somewhere in the Barringtons because Willy was "too busy" to let him down the coastal route, and a Mooney likewise as I recall. The USAF has less dedicated airspace than the RAAF has. Why we quietly suffer this outrageous military airspace grab I do not know. The Navy has great areas of airpace yet no fixed wing aircraft! It is only because our VMC traffic pressures are so miniscule that such inefficient controlling survives.

[ozbiggles]

Do you really want to hear why your mates up there?
He was the PIC, he made the decisions that night.

[Capt Fathom]

Why is anyone surprised by this!
We say NO because we can. Maximum inconvenience for the maximum number of people.
It's the Australian way.....!
:(

Ozbiggles... you live in a very insular world! Good luck!

[world traveler]

Dick, you also have to remember that at the end of the day you are also listening to one frequency. You cant be sure as to what other traffic was around. I am guilty of bitching about the controller having no traffic on freq and having me hold, later to find out that another frequency/controller was working their butt off.

I will agree that in the 13 years of my flying into RAAF bases, the standard of controlling at RAAF airfields seems to be falling. It seems that - and this is only my view - as you pointed out, recruitment may be tough for the RAAF and they are now letting through the ATC school pretty much anyone that applies for an ATC job these days. This would explain some of the local procedures that seem a bit "unusual" (keeping it simple), as opposed to the standards that are uniform in any class C. For any RAAFIE reading this, you know that if you graduated more than 2 years ago, you truely deserved your wings to control.... :ok:

Might i also add, everyone knows your callsigns, and if you keep posts like this going i cant see you getting a lot of help getting any track shortening.;)

[Dick Smith]

World. You have missed the point. The controller was following the rules. He did offer direct tracking after the hold.

He is not allowed to use modern proven safe procedures because he reports to dopes.

He must know this but can do little other than resign- which the good ones obviously do.

I wonder just how many of those deaths overseas are caused by this type of terrible leadership - never ever ask or take advice. - we know everything.

And I am on the Controllers side- I say again I find our military controllers as good as any in the world. They are forced to work with unique rules that treat them as if they are stupid.

Are you suggesting that I should not tell the truth because controllers know my call sign?

Maybe you , but not me!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I have never tried to transit Willy, but I have been flying in and out of Townsville for 25 years. With a couple of exceptions, and particularly in the last 10 years, I have generally been well looked after by RAAF ATC at Townsville when both VFR and IFR.

Dr :8

[Flying Binghi]

Perhaps things need changing. Though, with our military attending the odd war or two, plus a couple of floods, perhaps fixing "Willy" is well down the to-do list.




.

[world traveler]

Clearly you missed my tongue in cheek for the last sentence, note the smiley face :)

[Like This - Do That]

Shows you military blokes will do everything you can to resist change and never copy better proven procedures from others.

You deserve to have low morale. Remember that 1.2 billion dollars lost by your own peoples incompetence is one of the reasons you can't get proper pay - it all comes out of the military budget.

Dick I saw you in the crowd on (I'm pretty sure) George St last ANZAC Day, as I marched with my Sqn. You & Pip were applauding as I marched past and I appreciate that, cheers.

However I'm not so happy with what you've posted above. Not a good look, lashing out at the operators on the coalface of a less than perfect system. For what it's worth, I don't really like how GA is treated by Willy; but would you please avoid blaming the worker bees, telling them (us) that they (we) "deserve to have low morale"? There are plenty of reasons why SUBLTs, LTs, FLGOFFs etc have "low morale", but I'm not so sure that any of us deserve it due to our own failings.

Blame the system? Sure, blame the system, but don't blame some poor bloody PLTOFF or FLGOFF who has no say in how the system works.

{disclaimer - I'm not RAAF, and I'm not a controller}

[gobbledock]

Sydney, but thats an entirely different story....Speed up, slow down, turn left, turn right, change of runway...not into wind.. oops now speed up, sorry another change of runway, gee now slow down.. now hold... now max speed track shortening final change of runway, take first high speed and hold for 10 minutes.
Sounds like LAX !

[fmcinop]

no, LAX just keep you hot and high, then expect you to get in without a problem. Then you taxi on taxiways designed for C172's with cars and trucks driving right in front of you without giving way, pass a 747 with only 5m wingtip clearance, have 20 people all talking on the radio at the same time then you get sent to a standoff bay. Love LA!

[Ultralights]

last week returning from Ballina, held at anna bay, at 500 ft, over ocean, for 45 mins, no probs getting through Coffs, but 45 mins at willy was frustrating especially when 12 is in use, getting through Nowra presented no problems either, and if your Not transponder equipped, they get you through in the most professional manner,
come to think of it, every time i have needed to transit wiliamtown, there has been a delay of at least 20 to 30 mins.
i know the lane to the west is there, but its not fun in a 15 to 20 kt noreaster, im not a fan of flying in rotor turb at 1000 or lower AGL

[Jabawocky]

Is there some reason you can't be tracked at 1500 over the top of the field?:confused:

Works in Brisbane quite well :ok:

[rotorblades]

well, if LHR can track you over the top of the field SVFR in a class A CTZ shouldnt be too difficult in class C should it?

Alex

[gobbledock]

Is there some reason you can't be tracked at 1500 over the top of the field?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif
Can we do this into LAX as well ??

Then you taxi on taxiways designed for C172's with cars and trucks driving right in front of you without giving way, pass a 747 with only 5m wingtip clearance, have 20 people all talking on the radio at the same time then you get sent to a standoff bay. Love LA!
And you recieve all the above treatment if you are nice to them ! Don't get me started on what happens if you pi#s them off - now that has the makings off a new thread !

[Flopt]

Wot the Dr. said...ditto....haven't been through Willy for 20 yrs , though.

Flopt

[Capn Bloggs]

Is there some reason you can't be tracked at 1500 over the top of the field?

Works in Brisbane quite well
4 ship of Hornets at 550K at 1500ft? :}

[Bill Pike]

When my old friend Geoff Goodall was re-training US controllers for Airservices he says that his first words to them were. "In the States your aim was to move traffic. Forget that. Out here its to obey regulations".
Yes I know that there are many reasons why Mick is still missing in the Barringtons. The pivotal one is that he wasn't allowed down the coast, same as the Mooney.
I don't go with the "you don't know how many aircraft are really there" crap. It isn't hard to work that out after a few years listening. Precious few. And we bought them a handy radar set as well, which appears to be a mystery to them.
I would love to drop these blokes and their bosses into Tan Son Nhut in 1966. We would have had to cancel the war.

[Dick Smith]

Like This

The reason I go into the Anzac march each year is that I respect those who have risked their lives to ensure that I and others have the freedoms that some of us take for granted.

Freedoms like being able to. "say it how it is" about important issues.

For example I was one of the few who spoke publically about the shocking public waste of the Seasprite $1.2 billion stuff up. Note that no one responsible in the military has been held accountable or even identified.

No doubt most of that money went to the USA and meant less for Military families here.

This no doubt means nothing has been learnt and is probably about to be repeated with the JSF. Project.

I have been working on this issue for 28 years. Some real successes when it comes to civilian ATC procedures and airspace. Imagine if non radar airspace at places like Coffs Harbour still went out to 19 nm at ground level or if ATC's still had to procedurally separate VFR helicopters from each other!

When it comes to the military leadership they have lied by stating they will embrace modern procedures that have been proven safe but then do zero.

There must be something drastically wrong with the system in relation to advancement and this must result in the troops being constantly let down.

[gobbledock]

For example I was one of the few who spoke publically about the shocking public waste of the Seasprite $1.2 billion stuff up. Note that no one responsible in the military has been held accountable or even identified.
In all due respect Dick, you are successful a business man as well as an intelligent individual who has higher links to government individuals than the general populous. Are you really surprised that no accountability for the Seasprite debacle has been apportioned ? What about the Collins subs, BER, 'dodgy batts' and other monumental stuff-ups buried under the guise of spin and cheap political statements, the false security blanket called 'stimulus' which actually only benefits businessmen such as yourself (no offence) and defers the bursting of the big bubble by a few extra years. Throw into the equation the false value of 'paper money', the complete con that is called the Federal Reserve System ( I am sure you understand it's origins and what it actually does - makes a handful of welathy families extremely rich and powerful and not much else), fiat money, bank bailouts (another con that basically sees that taxpayers pay for the excess greed of wealthy businessmen), printing money, America's woeful debt situation in which they are bankrupt and trying unbelievably and ludicrously to increase the nations debt ceiling which will see them collapse into oblivion yet they continue to lie to and fool the masses with statements such as 'good fiscal policy' and 'improved outlook' and you say as an example 'Note that no one responsible in the military has been held accountable or even identified'.

C'mon Dick, you should know better than to waste your time questioning or raising such issues publicly. You should know better than most my entrepreneurial friend that even YOU are 'David vs Goliath' when you go up against the powers to be. If you are seeking clear and honest answers as well as the name or identification of an accountable individual then you have confused government with business. Two very different structures mate. I would suggest you put such time and energy into planting crops in Ethiopia or feeding the homeless on weeknights (maybe you already do), or embarking on another worldwide solo chopper journey to raise money for charity. You will get a lot more personal satisfaction out of that and a far better mental and emotional reward than asking any governemnt for honesty or accountability.

'Fallaces sunt rerum species'

[Dick Smith]

gobbledock

Whilst I agree with most of what you say, I can assure you I have been able to make some major changes by putting a lot of effort in. I won’t start to give examples here because people will start abusing the PPRuNe process.

I can assure you that one day we will get the Williamtown procedures to reflect what is proven in other countries in the world and even at places like Canberra where they have tower airspace.

One day there will be a person of competence in one of these positions in the Air Force, and he or she will make the changes quickly.

[TBM-Legend]

Willi was busy in my day. The VFR coastal route was well used. Sent a QF B747 up the lane one day [traffic is two C172's southbound!] at 500'....

No worries...

[NTZ]

I understand that this particular example may be a a segue into the general procedures in use, but a lot of the ones used at Willy were born of experience. Often these were more restrictive or an addition to existing standards because of the type of operations in use and were aimed at the lowest denominator (i.e typical GA pilot with little 'mixing it with military aircraft' experience).

Why? Because regardless of who was at fault or who misunderstood what, it was the controllers who had to clean the mess up (traffic alerts, emergency separation, paperwork and stand down from duties pending investigation).

The reason that this particular procedure is in place was because we cannot ensure that separation STANDARDS (Government decides them, not Military, not ATC) will remain with the IFR Aircraft conducting the ILS and transiting VFR aircraft, regardless off the weather conditions. On past experience, it is far easier to delay than deal with the (often weekly) consequences of passing on that responsibility when dealing with low vis aircraft at 450KT piloted by student fighter pilots.

I understand how frustrating that it is, but it is life. We now cater for the people who get it wrong, not the ones who get it right.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Maybe its time to move the fighter base to somewhere more suitable for that sort of activity, rather than have it disrupting civie traffic between Australia's 1st and 3rd largest cities.

Scherger comes to mind! :E

Dr :8

[PilotEyes]

Imagine the cost of that though! All so lighties don't get delayed in the VFR coastal lane?

[Clinton McKenzie]

We now cater for the people who get it wrong, not the ones who get it right.It seems to me that there are more traps out there that increase the risk of ‘getting it wrong’ these days, and the current Williamtown lane arrangements provide a typical example.

Purely coincidentally, I was planning a trip to Canberra to Taree and back, via the inland and coastal Williamtown lanes, when this thread appeared. I was looking at the current Newcastle/Williamtown VTC.

The inland lane is comprised of D589A and D589B. I noticed that the map shows the upper level of D589A as ‘1600’, and the upper level of D589B as ‘2000’. However, the explanatory text on the VTC, under the heading ‘General Aviation Routes Through Williamtown Airspace’, says the upper limit of D589A is ‘1000’ and the upper limit of D589B is ‘1500’.

So in summary:

- for D589A the map shows the upper limit as 1600 and the explanatory text says the upper limit is 1000, and

- for D589B the map shows the upper limit at 2000 and the explanatory text says the upper limit is 1500.

I searched the (invariably voluminous) FIR/HO/location-specific NOTAMS to see if there’s anything correcting info about D589A/B on the VTC – nothing found.

I realised that it is possible to reconcile the text with the map. It is possible that the combination of text and map means that you can fly up/down the lane at or below 1000/1500 without notifying Willy ATC (in accordance with the text), but if you want to fly above 1000/1500 up to 1600/2000 you have to notify Willy ATC.

But I’m confused, so I call Briefing. A very helpful chap says he’s not sure whether there’s an error, so he will check with Willy ATC. He gets back to me very quickly, and says that the text on the VTC is wrong but the map upper limits are correct, and I’m the first person to have queried the discrepancy (in a document published nearly two months previously).

So notwithstanding all the money we pay to keep our charts up to date these days, and notwithstanding the seemingly inexorable increase in the volume of NOTAMS we have to wade through to check whether, for example, the up to date charts we’ve paid for nonetheless contain mistakes, we can’t seem to get the complete, accurate and consistent information published. (Not criticising individuals at the ‘coal face’ here by the way – I’ll bet my pension that the cause is systemic.)

Now as it turns out, operations in accordance with the upper limits printed on the
VTC map rather than in the explanatory text will be OK (assuming, of course, that the oral advice I was passed by Briefing is accurate). But it could just as easily have been the other way around, and someone flying in accordance with the map limits rather than explanatory text limits would be labeled as one of the ‘lowest common denominator’ pilots who ‘gets it wrong’ and around whom these procedures must be designed.

If the limits printed on the map are the ‘Bible’, why print the limits in the explanatory text?

We used to get this stuff correct, almost all of the time.

I can remember being surprised a dozen or so years ago when a NOTAM was published, correcting a mistake on an ERC(L) to which I had a subscription. These days, there seem to be NOTAMS making corrections to almost every published document.

When I learnt to fly, a nice person in Briefing Office was able to identify the 3 or 4 NOTAMS applicable to my plan, within about 30 seconds, and those NOTAMS plus the published documents presented a clear, consistent picture.

I’m now at the point at which I have nagging doubts about the completeness, accuracy and consistency of everything I have to use and check, and nagging doubts about whether I spotted the two potentially relevant sentences in 24 pages of briefing material.

If someone purchased the up to date Newcastle/Williamtown VTC and checked NOTAMS today, they’d still be none the wiser about whether the difference between the map and explanatory text relating to D589 was deliberate or unintended.

I hear rumours about pilots who don’t purchase up to date charts, and don’t check NOTAMS. I’m not condoning this practice – indeed, I condemn it - but should we be surprised if it exists?

[Frank Arouet]

These days, there seem to be NOTAMS making corrections to almost every published document.

Clinton;

These days nearly every rule has an "exemption". Indeed most airlines, aeromedical, firefighting, police, experimental and, even RAA operate on "exemptions". You know that.
The lack of a serious regulatory review process comes to mind, but didn't you say that years ago?

Maybe its time to move the fighter base to somewhere more suitable for that sort of activity

Butterworth would be a good place.:oh:

[Capn Bloggs]

A vast nation with so much land, so lets throw as many military bases smack bang in the middle off every large town and city in the nation.
You are joking, aren't you? When were those military bases put where they are now?

I suppose you're the president of the "Let's move near an airport" "Geez it's noisy!" "Make 'em move the airport" society?

says that the text on the VTC is wrong but the map upper limits are correct, and I’m the first person to have queried the discrepancy (in a document published nearly two months previously).
Just goes to show the "professionalism" of the people who fly though the lanes, eh?

[Clinton McKenzie]

Just goes to show the "professionalism" of the people who fly though the lanes, eh?That was my initial thought, but then I thought we might just as easily say: ‘Just goes to show the “professionalism” of the people who do the quality control on the maps and information contained in the VTC, and of the people who should have published, but have yet to publish, a NOTAM resolving the discrepancy.’

If the AIP and ADF ATC systems are creaking at the seams, due to insufficient resources rather than a lack of ‘professionalism’ of individuals in those systems, perhaps individual pilots are entitled to some slack as well. Although I wouldn’t do it, I can understand why some pilots might plan and operate against the map information alone, in the absence of a NOTAM correcting that information. As it turns out, they would be operating in accordance with the intended limits.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

There does seem to be something wrong here.

When I was in Alaska a few months ago I observed:

1) Ted Stevens Anchorage Int Airport (busy international airport)
2) Lake Hood seaplane base (biggest seaplane base in the world)
3) Merril Field (secondary airport for Anchorage)
4) Elmendorf Airforce Base (lots of figher jets coming and going)
5) Fort Richardson (military airfield)
6) Campbell airstrip

all within about a 10 mile radius of Anchorage!

Did you get that? Six (6), that's "s" "i" "x", six aerodromes in a 10 mile radius !!!!!

Lots of aeroplanes coming and going with what appearred to be a minimum of fuss and bother.

Dr :8

[Dizzy Llama]

just curious - did a mod or Dick change the thread title?

[Like This - Do That]

Who currently lives at .... ooooh I don't know .... umm Weipa, or Katherine, or Derby ? Who - let's get down to brass tacks - WANTS to live at Weipa, Katherine, or Derby?

OK, so why are RAAF knucks (and spanners and techos and controllers and ADGs and clerks and firies) any different? Are people REALLY willing to utterly destroy recruitment and retention amongst the most expensive to train commonwealth employees, just so bugsmashers (and I'm one) can fly more conveniently through the Hunter Valley?

C'mon ....

[Frank Arouet]

They could co-exist with a minimum of effort.

[C-change]

Dick,

Was the Air Ambulance conducting an ILS RWY12 by any chance?

Also, by all means have a crack at procedures, airspace etc but the comment on deserving low morale was below the belt.

Some one made mention of all the "Navy Airspace" and that they don't have jets. Well done, you are correct but you've forgotten about the ships that like to fire shells, from many miles away. The shells also travel a bit faster than most jets.


For some of the others out there gobbing off, try and remember some of the work our Military personnel are currently engaged in !

Australian soldiers brave flood waters | The Daily Telegraph (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/australian-soldiers-brave-flood-waters/story-e6freuy9-1225988008376)

Queensland floods: Troops head to Ipswich to aid clean-up | The Daily Telegraph (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/queensland-floods-troops-head-to-ipswich-to-aid-clean-up/story-fn7ik9ph-1225988255171)

[Ultralights]

You are joking, aren't you? When were those military bases put where they are now?

I dont think its the location thats the problem, but in this modern era, with modern surveillance, GPS and other technologies, does the airspace around those bases have to be so monstrously large and difficult to get through?

[oldbull youngbull]

Also, by all means have a crack at procedures, airspace etc but the comment on deserving low morale was below the belt.


No, lets just slag/defame/slander the people on the frontline who AREN'T responsible for the mess aviation is.

[Quokka]

Who currently lives at .... ooooh I don't know .... umm Weipa, or Katherine, or Derby ? Who - let's get down to brass tacks - WANTS to live at Weipa, Katherine, or Derby?

It's a myth that no-one would relocate if the bases were relocated.

As for local recruitment, to this day I'm still amazed when I remember the number of times friendly locals delivered cakes to the CP or drove through our roadblocks to support an exercise scenario. Activate the dormant bases in the North-West and you'll be turning the young men and women away from a recruiting office in Karratha with a "No Vacancies" sign in the window.

As for relocating 2FTS from Pearce to the North... instructors will go for the right price and, if they don't, there are a few RAF instructors I know who would quite happily take the visa, posting and civilian contract.

Learmonth... diving at Ningaloo, fishing in the Indian Ocean, camping at Millstream-Chichester/Karijini, endless beaches.

Curtin... diving the Rowley Shoals, cruises along the Kimberley, exploring the Bungle Bungles, friendly crocodiles... :E

Yes it's hot but I live in a place that's just as hot and humid and we're not short of people putting their hand up to come here and live with their families.

Strategically it's no longer an option to have all of the ADF living a city life South of the Brisbane Line. Our resources are North and North-West of the line... and our friends over the equator who desire those resources now have a blue-water navy, substantial lines-of-logistics and the ability to project their land, air and sea forces to Australia.

War's are fought and won by War Bonds. When the money runs out... the war ends and you lose. How much of Australia's income and potential security for bonds would come from resources in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland?... and how much of Australia's ADF is projected forward of those assets? The depth-in-defence is... where?

The Gorgon Project will contribute in excess of 5% of Australia's GDP... from one location. To leave it without an active ADF presence would be... repeating the lessons of history... lessons that we seem to have forgotten.

The units at Williamstown and Pearce can be disbanded, the assets can be relocated North-West and the personnel can be redeployed or replaced leaving a caretaker unit and the runway. Besides, Perth needs a new airport desperately and Pearce would be a perfect addition (with a fast-rail link to Perth).

There is money for it... it's called a Government Stimulus Package... and this is the time in the economic cycle to do it... coincident with the strategic demand.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Stop it! That's common sense and has no place here!
As for relocating 2FTS from Pearce to the North... instructors will go for the right price I'll do it. And I'm not a Pom.
It's hard enough getting instructors to go to Tamworth, coz they all want to go to 2FTS in Perth. "Big city syndrome", I call it.

[flighthappens]

Quokka - I beg to differ . Lets be realistic here. It's not a myth... It wont affect the bograts but if you are talking about moving the senior dudes with the experience, you know the guys with kids at a good school, a wife with a stable job (what jobs are they going to get at exmouth/broome/weipa if they are a professional?) + no ROSO, they will vote with their feet. Why individuals think that because people have joined the ADF they forgo the chance have a normal lifestyle and to live in a desirable location is beyond me...

I suppose you think that everyone loves being posted to Tindal because they get to go camping, hunting, fishing etc... Some people do, A lot of people don't. As to Curtin or Learmonth - if people don't like diving or fishing what do you propose they do?

Strategically having those aircraft there or not every single day does not make a difference because :
a) there is no one out there bar the US that could feasibly cross the air sea gap, and b) there is no one out there with the intent to try.
c) ever tried assembling an invasion fleet in secret..seems hard to do and there will be enough pointers to move required assets in time... Cant see it happening myself...
d) if by our friends north of the equator you are talking china, to get to Australia first they are going to have to come through (in no particular order) Taiwan, Phillipines, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. There is also another small organisation called the USN. China is currently lacking power projection tools like Carriers, AWACS, Tankers, not to mention how the USN and Collins Class Subs would have a field day if they did try to sail down to Aus.....

Strategically for Australia to attempt to move Willytown would be a fail because a lot of the pilots and troops that you have spent invested a significant amount in time and money to train will vote with their feet. Financially it will be huge. You are talking about the infrastructure and personnel for 6 flying squadrons (2, 3, 4, 76, 77 & OCU) plus all of their support (ATC, Fire, Health, 2x wing HQ's, 1x FEG HQ, an ECSS, BAe, Boeing, Raytheon, cleaners, blanket stackers etc..). I realise there is a runway where you are talking, but there isn't actually much else.

However if you read this and still think that it is a feasible, realistic and financially worthwhile thing to do that will not have an impact on recruitment & retention, good luck with that.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[Howard Hughes]

For once I agree with you Dick! I can't see any reason why a VFR aircraft should be held up given those circumstances.

On a similar note I have been held at the holding point for one two waiting to depart, while an A320 who has not yet reached the outer marker is allowed to land. The WX at the time was broken at 3000!:eek:

The other thing that really needs to be looked at is the control steps, 9000 to 25 miles just doesn't work (without some effort), in most civilian aircraft.

[Wally Mk2]

G'Day 'HH', hope all is good there & yr savin' lives:-)

Don't get me started on our CTA steps around the major airports. Only here in Oz ( I believe) do we have such a crazy situation where transport cat A/C have to make sure they don't go OCTA (or into Class E with VFR lighites) whilst going into a major airport designed for such activities! Simply nuts!

I reckon our ATC'ers do a great job with a set of stupid rules!:ugh:


Wmk2

[C-change]

This thread is funny, I love how dick gets held up (correctly IMO, with current procedures and priorities) then bitches about it on this forum and it becomes a "Lets move ADF bases because they are a pain".

Lets look a Dicks problem of being held on the coast first up.
Say we did have class D Twr at Willy and he was allowed up the coast at 500' with traffic. An IFR jet (or anything) departs off RWY 12 and has a problem (or the Air ambulance does a MAP) and now the two aircraft are in each others way ! They both get further traffic advice (its now class d) on each other, the jet with problem is busy, can't see Dick and increases their workload. Dick can't see the jet with a problem either and is now asking lots of questions and adding to other PIC's workload. And on it goes. Could end up as nothing, could be a sep breakdown or could end badly. There are lots of "what if's" but if it were to happen, Dick would be on here bleating about what a poor service he just received from Willy and that with Radar we should be doing better and it should be Class C. Can't win either way.
Im situations like these, I like to have positive separation, as I have been caught by too many VFR pilots who simply have no idea what they are doing and cannot be relied upon to follow simple instructions, let alone arrange their own separation.


Moving bases;
Go for it people. A couple of problems though. You will have trouble staffing these bases for many, many years and it will cost billions of dollars. No Govn. will commit to spending the sort of money required to move major bases, it would be political suicuide and then we would have Dick on here bleating about more wasted money. Have people seriously thought about how much money Military bases contribute to local economies and the flow on effect if they were to move?

flighthappens said,

Lets be realistic here. It's not a myth... It wont affect the bograts but if you are talking about moving the senior dudes with the experience, you know the guys with kids at a good school, a wife with a stable job (what jobs are they going to get at exmouth/broome/weipa if they are a professional?) + no ROSO, they will vote with their feet


Yep, that was me and so have plenty of friends.

WallyMk2 said,

I reckon our ATC'ers do a great job with a set of stupid rules!:ugh:




Excellent statement.

[Super Cecil]

Out of interest sake this being a pilots rumour network, how many are pilots and how many are controllers posting on this thread? I'll start........Pilot. If your an ATC and also fly, don't be afraid to let us know where your priorities lie. :}

[Under Dog]

Can fully agree with you Dick!
Why the hell did they put a VFR lane up the Coast at 500ft any way?
Its not rocket science.
HH is right the distance they allow between aircraft departing and arriving is strange,
and that comes from arriving and departing willy on hundreds off occasions.

The Dog:ok:

[C-change]

Super Cecil,

I'm ATC but hold PPL fixed wind. Started rotary but ran out of money. I thought about MIL pilot, but at the time was too old, so got a gig in ATC instead.

My priorities don't lie with either, I prefer to pass on what I learn't from flying to others I have trained in ATC and also when I control. I am one small part of a system, whose job is to provide a service to pilots using the current rules and procedures. I have posted many times that ATC need to get out and go flying as much as they can and aircrew need to make the effort to visit ATC.
Many questions get answered and people get to understand each others issues, etc.

A bit of mutual understanding can go a long way.

[Dick Smith]

C-change, you state,

Im situations like these, I like to have positive separation, as I have been caught by too many VFR pilots who simply have no idea what they are doing and cannot be relied upon to follow simple instructions, let alone arrange their own separation.

C-change, from this it is quite clear you simply have no idea on how professional air traffic controllers work in countries like the United States and Canada. They don’t end up with people in Class C airspace (I have never asked for or wanted Class D at Williamtown) relying on pilots arranging their own separation. They use techniques which allow them to keep the aircraft apart without having to hold aircraft unnecessarily.

I mentioned in a previous post the tower having airspace or the radar controller being allowed to use target resolution procedures. Why don’t you answer this? Tell me: why in the United States and Canada – with possibly twenty times the number of pilots - don’t they have the problem you are claiming, i.e. pilots who “cannot be relied upon to follow simple instructions”.

Surely if this was a problem in the United States and Canada they would have changed the procedures to that which you use at Williamtown? They haven’t, because I have spoken to the controllers at Class C towers and they simply cannot believe the ineptitude of the Australian system.

Yes, I know – it’s not the air traffic controllers’ responsibility to bring in modern regulations. That’s why I am criticising the non-leadership in the RAAF.

For over twenty-five years they have known that there are procedures which allow controllers to facilitate traffic at very high levels of safety, yet they have never made a change.

I know why. It’s because they could be held responsible for making a change, and they are in their positions of hierarchy because they never make a decision that they can ever be held responsible for.

Luckily, these people will be sacked if we have a real war, and some competent people will be appointed who will take the responsibility of making decisions that benefit the whole country, not just one person not being held accountable.

[onemore]

Dick
Luckily, these people will be sacked if we have a real war, and some competent people will be appointed who will take the responsibility of making decisions that benefit the whole country, not just one person not being held accountable.

Defence has been fighting Real wars for quite a few years and are currently involved in a couple right now - and they do quite well thank you

Regarding sea sprites I have suggested in a previous post that you should look into the acquisition process rather then focus on service personnel. Defence and the services are different. A service may ask for a capability but in reality they have very little control over what DMO or politics acquire. Do you really believe navy wanted the sea sprite! It came in because of the industry and political influences involved in tendering for the malaysian OPV project.....

I've never been delayed going up the coastal route but obviously others have, so yes fight for reform - but please don't be so broad with your opinions of Defence SERVICE Personnel no matter what rank they hold

[YPJT]

Luckily, these people will be sacked if we have a real war
So you are now the self proclaimed Minister of Defence of CDF are you?:yuk:

Your comment is beneath contempt and an insult to every person who has or is serving in uniform.

[Dick Smith]

YPJT

Surely it is obvious that the Minister for Defence or the CDF will do nothing about this.

Onemore, I will make it quite clear again, I am not criticising the people who do the actual work. It is just the non decision makers above. I wonder how many people have needlessly died in our military because of straight out incompetence of those in the hierarchy when it comes to asking advice and following the best from overseas. No doubt this will only come up when there is a proper royal commission – otherwise they all protect themselves.

Why if there was a decision maker in the Defence, haven’t they said in the last 25 years something like ”Mr Smith we can’t follow the procedures in Class C that are used in countries like the United States and Canada for the following reasons….”. In fact, these people – right at the top have told me they are making the changes, but it never happens. No doubt it never happens because the person who is delegated to do the job suddenly realises that they may be held accountable for changes they make and what has been pushed into the system for years is the fact that if you don’t make a decision it is most likely you will see your career through and never be held responsible for anything.

Yes, I am very much concerned about our forces that are overseas – because it is obvious that there is a complete mentality within the hierarchy in the Defence Force to never ask advice and never copy the success of others. That will only result in unnecessary lives being lost. I will not move away from this and hopefully some changes will be made before there is a catastrophe.

YPJT and Onemmore, why don’t you comment on why we are so different with our Class C procedures, with countries like the United States and Canada. Surely there must be a reason. Don’t try and tell that Australian pilots are less responsible or Australian airtraffic controllers and those in the military are not as competent. I don’t believe any of that. I simply see it as a shocking lack of leadership which is letting the whole country down through the waste.

[onemore]

Dick, you are stereotyping everyone leader in the Defence Force as incompetent because you don't agree with something. You need to develop a better understanding of the ADF, Capability Management, budget constraints, resource shortages and the fact that just about everyone in Defence is a decision maker - it's a team thing not the dictator structure you believe.

You can't call every service leader incompetent because of some poor projects without acknowledging the government process that applies in large projects.

As for will airspace, I agree it might be nice to be easier But it's hardly dangerous. Just maybe Defence would like to make it easier (theorectically) it's quite possible that there just are t enough resources to review and adopt new procedures. My guess is giving you and me a quicker clearance for a beach run is probably a little bit lower in the scheme of things considering the current operational tempo of the ADF.

I can't comment on overseas systems Dick, because I don't have the knowledge or experience

As I said I don't disagree it should be easier I just can't agree with you making branding the entire Defence force as idiots.

[mcgrath50]

Ever noticed that London, New York, Paris and Moscow have a much better public transport system than us? Because they have population and density. Could it be a cost issue preventing us from operating like they do in the US?

[Frank Arouet]

JPJT;

How very disappointing to have somebody so crass as to criticise an Australian of the Year as being beneath contempt with regard The Australian Defence Forces.

History is full of Military incompetence. It continues today.

Landing an Army on the wrong beach and fighting a loosing battle and bugging out in the night is a matter of historical record, not a criticism of the PBI.

People like you make me wonder about my motives for wearing the uniform to defend the freedoms you enjoy today.

All so you can have a cheap anonymous shot at someone you don't like.

Piss weak. What have you achieved?

[YPJT]

People like you make me wonder about my motives for wearing the uniform to defend the freedoms you enjoy today.

I used to wonder the same thing when I was in uniform about people who would take a cheap shot to further their own petty agenas. But that's another story. Back to the gun pit with you.

And pray tell, since when did receiving an honour bestow some divine protection from a provoked reaction?

[Frank Arouet]

I used to wonder the same thing when I was in uniform about people who would take a cheap shot to further their own petty agenas.

I believe I just accused you of that.

[peuce]

Hi Dick, long time no see ...

YPJT and Onemmore, why don’t you comment on why we are so different with our Class C procedures, with countries like the United States and Canada

I believe that's been answered for you many times. Unfortunately, you can't accept it, so you keep asking the question until you, hopefully, get an answer you like.

It's easy ... the answer is still that these places are all different ! Different populations, different geographies, different technologies, different facilities, different philosophies.

As an example.... Ho Chi Minh City and Sydney have similar road rules(believe it or not). However, have you ever tried to cross a road in HCMC? If you used the same technique in Sydney ... you'd be road kill. Why is this?

The reasons I mentioned above.

[C-change]

G'day Dick,

I'll attempt to answer but I also need some additional info.


C-change, from this it is quite clear you simply have no idea on how professional air traffic controllers work in countries like the United States and Canada.


Yes and no. I have worked with many Candian, US, UK and Sth African controllers over the years but I have never controlled outside Aus. When we have discussed different procedures, I have often agreed that they have better procedures in some instances and they have also agreed that we do some things better. Horses for courses I guess. From my seat, I live and work here in Oz and as I'm an employee, I work with the rules and procedures that I'm allowed too. I can't just make it up as I go to suit the traffic. If the rule makers change their minds (and they do frequenctly) I live with and get on with it.


I mentioned in a previous post the tower having airspace or the radar controller being allowed to use target resolution procedures. Why don’t you answer this?


Because I don't really know what you want. What are "target resolution procedures" ? What do you mean by this ? I'm not taking the piss by the way.
Are you looking for a reduction in the Radar separation standard of 3Nm between returns ? How will the Tower having the airspace help your example? Aircraft in the VFR coastal lane are very difficult to see from Willy Twr.

Also, if you felt holding was placing you in any sort of danger, did you ask for a higher lever, direct to the field to overfly ?

[le Pingouin]

On a similar note I have been held at the holding point for one two waiting to depart, while an A320 who has not yet reached the outer marker is allowed to land. The WX at the time was broken at 3000!:eek:And in the event of a go-around the controller separates you how? Might work for a similar performance aircraft but could rapidly turn to poo in a 172.

[NTZ]

I'm starting to get a little confused about what the problem actually is. You actually got access through Military Restricted Airspace right?

Just out of interest, do you drive a car? If so, you'll completely understand my grief when I tell you about an incident I had coming home last night.

I had to stop at a set of traffic lights and there was nobody, I mean absolutely nobody, on the crossing. Visibility was about 5km and cloud base about four thousand. Why are we stopping at red lights when there is no possibility of conflict? I must have wasted a good two minutes.

I was already angry from an incident the previous day when I drove into a national park and a sign at the end of the sealed section had the audacity to declare that "no vehicles were allowed, park and emergency vehicles excepted". This is clear prejudice and to be honest, ridiculous. There was only one group on the pedestrian track and visibility was at least four hundred metres, cloud base about ten thousand. Why would ranger vehicles and emergency vehicles get to access these areas, but not me?

Talk about restrictive procedures. Seriously though, I'll tell you who I'm not going to blame - the Police Department and the guys from Parks and Wildlife.

[Dick Smith]

Peuce

You state,
“the answer is still all different”
as your explanation for why we can’t accept modern international air traffic control procedures.

Peuce, I have heard it all before. When I was originally on the Board of the Civil Aviation Authority, I was told that we needed to have unique certification standards for aircraft in Australia – because Australia is different. This cost tens of millions of dollars per year for recertification and modification of aircraft, all meaning less money for real safety issues.

For example, in a 747 the flight data recorder had to be modified so its sampling rate was different to that accepted by ICAO and in the country of manufacture.

As CAA Chairman, I introduced a first of type acceptance from five leading aviation countries where modifications did not have to be made. Have aircraft crashed since then because we have accepted overseas certification standards? No, there has been no measurable effect on reducing safety, in fact most likely the opposite because such a huge amount of money has been able to be reallocated from “technical wine-tasting” trips by bureaucrats to real safety issues, i.e. more simulator training or even getting a simulator in Australia in the first place!


C-change
You mention that in some instances other countries do things better. Why wouldn’t you then copy these things? My success has come from looking around the world and copying the best. Sounds pretty sensible to me. And if I found that the USA and Canada and other countries had air traffic control procedures that gave the same high levels of safety but saved waste, I would certainly want to look at it.

You ask me what target resolution procedures are. Basically, when aircraft are in VMC in Class C airspace the radar “blips” must not meet. Now before you throw up your hands in rage, it doesn’t mean the air traffic controllers let aircraft get that close. It just means that rather than keeping them a ridiculous three miles apart – which is the separation standard when they are both in cloud – it allows the air traffic controller to use professional judgement and let them get closer. In many cases, this saves a huge amount of time and reduces workload.

In the Williamtown situation I referred to at the start of this thread, the extra workload on the controller by holding two aircraft can lead to reducing safety for the airline aircraft that he or she should be concentrating on. Anyway, this is what I am told by international air traffic control specialists.

If the tower had airspace to the boundary like it does in Canberra - took about ten years to get in – the controllers can use a quite different separation standard. They regularly do it in Canberra. Aircraft are allowed to fly to Parliament House when there is an aircraft on approach to the runway from the south.

Of course you could say “what happens if the pilot has to do a missed approach”? Well, the controllers can handle that quite well because they are allowed to make professional judgements in relation to separation.

C-change, once again I say our controllers are the best in the world, but they are treated as if they are kindergarten children by the military hierarchy and not given a proper professional level of responsibility. As I have said, I can imagine why the morale would be low, and I certainly would not recommend to young people to join the military under the present situation. You can see that the people in charge are abrogating their responsibility of providing leadership, allowing individuals to accept responsibility and be accountable.

This has only been going on for twenty-five years. One day it will be changed. I remember with the Victor lane, how Alan Green – the ex-military person then with Qantas - spent his whole life trying to prevent it, claiming that if a Qantas aircraft had an engine failure on departing to the east it could drop down into the lane.

Fortunately we were able to work around Alan Green, and the Victor lane has substantially improved safety by reducing completely unnecessary workload on approach controllers.

Once again, it was copying the best from overseas.

The military explanation of the archaic Class C procedures that controllers must comply with is that the military do not have their own Class C procedures and simply copy those of Airservices. Of course, Airservices has a responsibility to maximise profits, not change to modern international safe procedures.

We need to do this at Williamtown and at other places. One day it will happen. In the meantime, I am going to become quite vocal in explaining to the Australian public how weak our military leaders are and how this is most likely resulting in avoidable fatalities because it’s clear that there is no ethic to ever ask advice or to copy the success from around the world. It’s all about “we don’t want to ask, we don’t want to know, we do it best, go away”.

[Dick Smith]

NTZ
Your post is so ridiculous I wonder if you are one of those military-types trying to justify the status quo.

A better example in relation to the traffic lights would be if the traffic lights were set so that vehicles had to remain three miles apart on the road.

NTZ, the situation is as simple as this: other leading aviation countries have regulations and procedures which facilitate traffic in the safest possible way. We have never updated to these procedures, so it means that our air traffic controllers are treated like s***. I have spoken to controllers who have said they would love to use the procedures that controllers use in other countries, such as those the USA, Canada and the UK are allowed to use, but it’s just not so.

I have had military people tell me that the RAAF is going to move to these modern procedures, but after decades of being told this, nothing has happened.

My suggestion is you open your mind and think laterally, rather than keep it set in concrete.

[scran]

Your example of procedures at Canberra as against Williamtown is invalid.

At Canberra, an aircraft at Parliment House is well clear of the approach path from the south, whereas the coastal lane at Willy CROSSES the approach path for an aircraft to Runway 30 (assuming an instrument approach).

Apples with Apples Dick. :=


And I agree with posters above - your comments on senior military officers make you beneath contempt :yuk::yuk::yuk:



(Ex Mil ATC - 2 tours at Williamtown)

(Edited to add Instrument in the approach brackets)

[The Chaser]

Disk Smith says:-
it is quite clear you simply have no idea on how professional air traffic controllers work in countries like the United States and Canada. They don’t end up with people in Class C airspace (I have never asked for or wanted Class D at Williamtown) relying on pilots arranging their own separation. They use techniques which allow them to keep the aircraft apart without having to hold aircraft unnecessarily.
What techniques?? … ah
I mentioned in a previous post the tower having airspace or the radar controller being allowed to use target resolution procedures. Why don’t you answer this? Tell me: why in the United States and Canada – with possibly twenty times the number of pilots - don’t they have the problem you are claiming, i.e. pilots who “cannot be relied upon to follow simple instructions”.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/ATC.pdf
Chapter 5 – RADAR
5-5-3. TARGET RESOLUTION
a. A process to ensure that correlated radar targets or digitized targets do not touch.
b. Mandatory traffic advisories and safety alerts shall be issued when this procedure is used.
[U]NOTE This procedure shall not be provided utilizing mosaic radar systems.
c. Target resolution shall be applied as follows:
1. Between the edges of two primary targets or the edges of primary digitized targets.
2. Between the end of the beacon control slash and the edge of a primary target or primary digitized target.
3. Between the ends of two beacon control slashes.
In other words, ‘Target Resolution’ is the procedures when separation no longer or does not exist. Pilots do not get “simple instructions” in this procedure, they get traffic information and safety alerts (it is tantamount to radar based traffic alerts in class G). It is not the RADAR separation minima.

Are you arguing for class E??? …. Hmmm must being seeing as:-

Separation minima in the US is as follows:-
5-5-4. MINIMA
Separate aircraft by the following minima:
a. Broadband Radar System or Digital Terminal Automation System (DTAS):
NOTE Includes single sensor long range radar mode.
1. When less than 40 miles from the antenna – 3_miles.
2. When 40 miles or more from the antenna – 5_miles.
3. TERMINAL. For single sensor ASR-9 with Mode S, when less than 60 miles from the antenna – 3 miles.
NOTE Wake turbulence procedures specify increased separation minima required for certain classes of aircraft because of the possible effects of wake turbulence.
b. Stage A/DARC, MEARTS Mosaic Mode, Terminal Mosaic/Multi-Sensor Mode:
NOTE Mosaic/Multi-Sensor Mode combines radar input from 2 to 16 sites into a single picture utilizing a mosaic grid composed of radar sort boxes.
1. Below FL 600- 5 miles.
2. At or above FL 600- 10 miles.
3. For areas meeting all of the following conditions:
(a) Radar site adaptation is set to single sensor.
(b) Significant operational advantages can be obtained.
(c) Within 40 miles of the antenna.
(d) Below FL 180.
(e) Facility directives specifically define the area where the separation can be applied. Facility directives may specify 3 miles.
4. When transitioning from terminal to en route control, 3 miles increasing to 5 miles or greater, provided:
(a) The aircraft are on diverging routes/ courses, and/or
(b) The leading aircraft is and will remain faster than the following aircraft; and
(c) Separation constantly increasing and the first center controller will establish 5 NM or other appropriate form of separation prior to the aircraft departing the first center sector; and
(d) The procedure is covered by a letter of agreement between the facilities involved and limited to specified routes and/or sectors/positions.
c. MEARTS Mosaic Mode:
NOTE-
1. Sensor Mode displays information from the radar input of a single site.
2. Procedures to convert MEARTS Mosaic Mode to MEARTS Sensor Mode at each PVD/MDM will be established by facility directive.
1. When less than 40 miles from the antenna- 3_miles.
2. When 40 miles or more from the antenna- 5_miles.
d. STARS Multi-Sensor Mode:
NOTE-
1. In Multi-Sensor Mode, STARS displays targets as filled and unfilled boxes, depending upon the target's distance from the radar site providing the data. Since there is presently no way to identify which specific site is providing data for any given target, utilize separation standards for targets 40 or more miles from the antenna.
2. When operating in STARS Single Sensor Mode, if TRK appears in the data block, handle in accordance with para_5-3-7, Identification Status, subpara b, and take appropriate steps to establish nonradar separation.
3. TRK appears in the data block whenever the aircraft is being tracked by a radar site other than the radar currently selected. Current equipment limitations preclude a target from being displayed in the single sensor mode; however, a position symbol and data block, including altitude information, will still be displayed. Therefore, low altitude alerts shall be provided in accordance with para 2-1-6, Safety Alert.
WAKE TURBULENCE APPLICATION
e. Separate aircraft operating directly behind, or directly behind and less than 1,000 feet below, or following an aircraft conducting an instrument approach by:
NOTE-
1. When applying wake turbulence separation criteria, directly behind means an aircraft is operating within 2500_feet of the flight path of the leading aircraft over the surface of the earth.
2. Consider parallel runways less than 2,500 feet apart as a single runway because of the possible effects of wake turbulence.
1. Heavy behind heavy- 4 miles.
2. Large/heavy behind B757- 4 miles.
3. Small behind B757- 5 miles.
4. Small/large behind heavy – 5 miles.
WAKE TURBULENCE APPLICATION
f. TERMINAL. In addition to subpara e, separate an aircraft landing behind another aircraft on the same runway, or one making a touch‐and‐go, stop‐and‐go, or low approach by ensuring the following minima will exist at the time the preceding aircraft is over the landing threshold:
NOTE Consider parallel runways less than 2,500 feet apart as a single runway because of the possible effects of wake turbulence.
1. Small behind large- 4 miles.
2. Small behind B757- 5 miles.
3. Small behind heavy- 6 miles.
g. TERMINAL. 2.5 nautical miles (NM) separation is authorized between aircraft established on the final approach course within 10 NM of the landing runway when operating in single sensor slant range mode and aircraft remains within 40 miles of the antenna and:
1. The leading aircraft's weight class is the same or less than the trailing aircraft;
2. Heavy aircraft and the Boeing 757 are permitted to participate in the separation reduction as the trailing aircraft only;
3. An average runway occupancy time of 50_seconds or less is documented;
4. CTRDs are operational and used for quick glance references;
5. Turnoff points are visible from the control tower.

[The Chaser]

C Change asks:-
if you felt holding was placing you in any sort of danger, did you ask for a higher lever, direct to the field to overfly ?
Fair question. especially considering this:-

In Feb 2008 Disk Smith said:-
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/304974-25-years-holding-williamtown-16.html#post3905117
Here is some good news. I have received a number of reports that they are changing some of the procedures at Williamtown. For example, an aircraft going up the light aircraft lane was given 1,000 feet as the altitude – better than 500 feet if there is a necessity to orbit.

More importantly, aircraft have been allowed over the top. Recently a VFR aircraft was given a clearance over the top at 3,500 feet whilst three RPT aircraft were coming in. The VFR aircraft was actually right over the top of the field when one of the RPTs landed.

Congratulations to those at Williamtown who are making the changes. I “dips me lid” to you.
And then in June 2008 Disk Smith said:-
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/304974-25-years-holding-williamtown-16.html#post4184960
Great service at Williamtown

I came down through the Williamtown airspace yesterday afternoon in my helicopter. On board were my wife and three grandchildren – one of whom is under two years old and can’t swim.

As I passed Port Stephens heading south and dropped to 500 feet, it became obvious that there were a number of IFR aircraft heading into Williamtown.

I dreaded what was going to happen, but it was not so. The friendly controller called me and advised that there was a lot of IFR traffic and I could either hold at Anna Bay or track overhead the Williamtown airfield at 1,000 feet. As holding at Anna Bay would have taken me out over a frighteningly rough ocean at 500 feet, I opted to track to Williamtown. From there I was tracked to Nobbys. It probably put a slight extra distance on my route but meant that flight safety was maintained.

The controller even apologised for the extra tracking that was required. I thanked him, and here I would like to say to whoever has made these changes, “I ‘dips me lid’ to you.”

Flying a bit of extra distance over land is always preferred to orbiting over a rough ocean with young children at 500 feet.
So what say you Disk? I’d like to know you answer to C Changes question also!

As a related aside, 2 posts later:-
By the way I understand we can thank AOPA for encouraging the RAAF to make the improvements. ;)

[peuce]

Dick, you said:

Peuce, I have heard it all before. When I was originally on the Board of the Civil Aviation Authority, I was told that we needed to have unique certification standards for aircraft in Australia – because Australia is different.

We are not talking about aircraft certification here, we are talking about Air Traffic Management ... two different pieces of fruit. In general, I actually agree with your position on certification, but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

[Jack Ranga]

Your post is so ridiculous I wonder if you are one of those military-types trying to justify the status quo.

No his post is not ridiculous, it is entirely valid and indicates (to those too intellectually challenged to understand) why some procedures apply. Have a think about it Dick.

[NTZ]

Dick, wonder away. Ironically the military I parted many years ago for similar arguments, but on different topics.

The point I was trying to make is that these procedures aren't in play for your benefit. This is Military Restricted Airspace and the procedures are in use for for the primary users, usually with quite valid reasons. You are in their playing field. You blame ATC, or them indirectly by their leadership, but in most cases, it is these users that propose and sign off on the procedures in use to fit in with their own operations (providing that it isn't legislated of course).

What next, no Class C, no Class A. You just fly where you want, when you want and you'll be the judge of the impact it has on the rest of the aviation community?

I've got no problem with you disagreeing with the procedure, but please, spend a few hours with all of the operators (ATC included) before you go and decide what is best for them.

[Jack Ranga]

How very disappointing to have somebody so crass as to criticise an Australian of the Year as being beneath contempt with regard The Australian Defence Forces.

And here we go, Mr P!ssweak himself jumping in to defend the indefensible. Australian of the year or not, does not give you the right to abuse and intimidate people who are just following rules.

I personally would have liked to continue to use visual separation above 10,000ft, but I can't. Using it will see me losing my job.

And just what have you achieved Frank?

Nobody I know denies Dick's wonderful achievements, his philanthropy alone makes him a great Australian.

Airspace? Procedures? Stick to what you know and are good at Dick :ok:

[Dick Smith]

Scran
My examples in relation to Canberra are correct. You can fly in from the north across the missed approach path into Canberra and get a clearance from Canberra tower (whose airspace you are in) to fly visually to Parliament House.

Obviously if an aircraft on approach to Canberra does a missed approach, it’s in your vicinity. Somehow Canberra tower can handle this – like controllers do all around the world in places other than Williamtown.


The Chaser
Target resolution is used in all Class C airspace in the United States. The controllers have told me if they did not use target resolution procedures, they basically would not be able to operate Class C airspace safely.

Please understand that under ICAO in Class C, IFR must be separated from VFR.

The FAA has not notified a difference in relation to Class C, so they consider the procedures they use in Class C to be control procedures and have the controller responsible for separating aircraft.

Yes, I agree – it’s not three miles. It’s as you point out in the documents you have posted.

Of course, they do give traffic to each aircraft. When I am flying at flight levels, controllers normally give me traffic of someone crossing or passing at a nearby altitude. It’s just courtesy and adds to safety if someone has made a mistake. It does not mean the controller is not responsible for separation.

I say again – these Class C procedures would be ideal for Williamtown which does not have mosaic radar and as far as I know is using a single head for aircraft that are in close to the field.

Or, as I mentioned before, why not give the tower some airspace so it can control traffic like they do at Sydney airport. You are not separated there if you are in a helicopter by three miles from an IFR aircraft – they have some quite modern procedures similar to what is used in the United States – that’s if you have the right controllers on duty.


Peuce
You say aircraft certification has nothing to do with air traffic control procedures, however I am giving an example of where people in the bureaucracy have maintained that something shouldn’t be changed for many years and, when it is, it’s widely supported.

If we can accept the US certification standards, why can’t we accept US-enlightened procedures for Class C?

Once again I see all these posts about maintaining the status quo. Once again, I’m not criticising workface air traffic controllers in the military. I feel extremely sorry for them. They are treated as second-rate people, not allowed to make responsible decisions that their colleagues make every day all around the world.

One day this will be fixed. Until then, I wouldn’t recommend people join the military because it’s clear that some of the procedures are up to fifty years out of date. This is nothing short of criminal, as far as I am concerned, when lives are at risk.

[Dick Smith]

Jack Ranga

Thanks for the nice words, however I consider my best achievements have been in aviation reform. One day I’m going to write a book of the changes that have been made that are now accepted by pilots and air traffic controllers.

Can you imagine if you told a Sydney tower or approach air traffic controller that he or she had to start separating VFR helicopters from each other? They would go crazy!

Well, for the first three years of my flying helicopters in Sydney, this is what happened. I even wrote a complete chapter in my book, “Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom”. By encouraging people to copy modern overseas practices, I managed to get this changed, and now helicopters can fly in Sydney and in other places in Australia – especially Hobart – using modern international procedures.

I can well remember having to hold at Hornsby for ten minutes orbiting in a single engine helicopter over a built-up area whilst the controller was waiting for the Channel 9 helicopter to clear the control zone so I could be allowed to fly in to North Ryde. The whole thing was ridiculous, but believe it or not at the time there were controllers – and mainly their bosses – who maintained that these procedures were necessary for safety.

What a load of rubbish!

No-one would want to go back to that today. That’s why we need to support our controllers and allow them to use modern, international procedures in Class C airspace.

[The Chaser]

... you didn't answer C Changes question. WHY? :=
The FAA has not notified a difference in relation to Class C, so they consider the procedures they use in Class C to be control procedures and have the controller responsible for separating aircraft.
Which is not the 'Target Resolution' procedure. You are wrong to suggest so Disk. In class C in the US, and all other contracting states, IFR are separated from IFR and VFR, VFR need not be separated from other VFR, thus the procedure as above. Do you not see the difference between reality (written), and your reality :hmm:

The Williamtown scenario was not between two VFR was it!? Further, in Sydney the tower 'Separate' where able, using ATC applied 'visual separation', it is a separation standard, not a DTI and hope they won't hit, or for that matter a RADAR DTI Target Resolution procedure ... which again I stress is not a 'separation standard'.

If a US TRACON controller used target resolution between two IFR or an IFR and a VFR, are you saying that is not going to have them in the office for Tea and Bikkies (not crap el cheapo ones)?

[Dick Smith]

The Chaser

I did not state that under ICAO in Class C that VFR are separated from VFR. I said it very clearly, please understand that under ICAO in Class C, IFR must be separated from VFR

I understand the reason they have target resolution procedures is so the aircraft can get close enough together so visual separation can be used.

Australian air traffic controllers know it’s virtually impossible to see a small aeroplane three miles away, and so this means they basically separate them by three miles.

Wouldn’t it be better to have the US procedure where aircraft can be allowed to get closer together so they can sight each other?

If it works at Sydney airport, do you reckon it might work at Williamtown?

By the way, can someone tell me how much airspace the tower actually controls at Williamtown? Is it out to the circuit boundary or is it just the runway? I would love to know.

[Dick Smith]

The Chaser
You state
If a US TRACON controller used target resolution between two IFR or an IFR and a VFR, are you saying that is not going to have them in the office for Tea and Bikkies (not crap el cheapo ones)?
What I know for certain is that US TRACON controllers use target resolution in Class C when visual conditions exist. Why wouldn’t you? Why would you want to be bound to our three mile separation standard which is designed for when you are in I.M.C.?

Chaser, you haven’t answered one thing: what is the reason the military haven’t at least investigated target resolution procedures for Williamtown and, if they have, why haven’t they explained why they don’t want to go this way?

I think you will find there has been no genuine investigation. Minds are closed. Minds are set in concrete. It’s a system where the incompetent are promoted and the lateral-thinkers leave.

[scran]

Dick: you said:

Scran
My examples in relation to Canberra are correct. You can fly in from the north across the missed approach path into Canberra and get a clearance from Canberra tower (whose airspace you are in) to fly visually to Parliament House.

Obviously if an aircraft on approach to Canberra does a missed approach, it’s in your vicinity. Somehow Canberra tower can handle this – like controllers do all around the world in places other than Williamtown.


What you said in your original post was:

Aircraft are allowed to fly to Parliament House when there is an aircraft on approach to the runway from the south.


I qualified my discussion when I mentioned the issue about an instrument approach onto RWY 30 at Willy. You are now expanding on your original point to make it appear correct - again!

So, your answer to me is:

BULL**** := := :=

Without consulting the charts, even a missed approach of an approach from the north can easily be kept away from and Aircraft at Parliment House, which is basically 3.4NM west of the southern threshold (or close enough). An aircraft holding at Parliment House can simply be separated using lateral separation from the Tower.

That is not the case at Willy where the coastal lane is 3NM from the threshold RWY 30. (Although I can think of ways to have a missed approach aircraft separated from the lane quite easily.)


STOP CHANGING THE ARGUMENT TO SUIT YOURSELF. :=



(PS - I did two tours of Willy: 1976-79 and 84/85. In those 5 years, I remember holding aircraft on about 3 occassions - which were when Mirages were doing GCA's or an Instrument Approach to RWY 30. I NEVER held a lighty "just in case" of a missed approach on RWY 12. Oh, and re the Tower Airspace question, in my first tour the Tower "controlled" the lane, but on my 2nd tour Approach did. Now I suspect the Tower just controls the circuit area - but it's been a while, so....)

Do us all a favour...................:rolleyes:



PPS - and thanks for the compliment - I think laterally and left.......:E :E :ok:

[The Chaser]

... and there it is folks, he wants a VMC free for all by a different name ... geez what a turn up!
What I know for certain is that US TRACON controllers use target resolution in Class C when visual conditions exist. Why wouldn’t you? Why would you want to be bound to our three mile separation standard which is designed for when you are in I.M.C.?
Not between IFR and VFR they don't, 3 miles is for 3 main reasons:-

1. It is a safe distance
2. It enables pilots to concentrate on aviating rather than avoiding
3. It reduces substancially the 'frequency loading' with MANDATORY traffic information and safety alerts.
Chaser, you haven’t answered one thing: what is the reason the military haven’t at least investigated target resolution procedures for Williamtown and, if they have, why haven’t they explained why they don’t want to go this way?
Why would they need to, they already have these procedures for VFR/VFR management in Class C, in a practical sense, just the same as the USA :hmm:
I think you will find there has been no genuine investigation. Minds are closed. Minds are set in concrete. It’s a system where the incompetent are promoted and the lateral-thinkers leave.
It is clear whose minds are closed. If you are going to agitate, insult, misrepresent rules O/S and wrongly blame our hard working Military, at least get your facts straight first.

The Australian Military ATC operate from the same Manual of Air Traffic Services as does Airservices. Both the RAAF insignia and logo of Airservices are on the first page. Also, of greater relevance is that the M.A.T.S is in compliance of its parent legislative document, the Manual of Standards ... who do you reckon is the custodian of the MoS?

= CASA

BTW, I am sure all have noted, you still have not answered C Change's question re the requested clearance :=

How about you apologise to the hard working men and women of the R.A.A.F you have slagged and insulted?!?!

[Jack Ranga]

now accepted by pilots and air traffic controllers.

Dick, I'm a pilot and ATC. I don't accept that I can't use visual separation above 10,000ft as a controller (or pilot) but the simple fact of the matter is if I decided to use it while it doesn't exist as a separation standard anymore, it's not just tea and bickies, it's DCM.

Your beef is with CASA, ASA, RAAF, OAR and possibly ICAO. Not with individual controllers. You're not going to achieve anything amongst us (ATC's) when you continue to berate us in a public forum. :ugh:

[scran]

Chaser - just to clarify (same sheet of music etc) the radar separation standard wes 3nm between the centre of the two radar returns, but returns never to touch.

With two SSR Returns (symbols) the standard was 5nm, or a mix of primary and SSR 5nm (or it was in my day pre TAAATS/ADATS - I last controlled live in 1992).

Is it now 3nm between centre of the (system generated) symbols? (noting that in some cases, the position of the aircraft "symbol" is a system corrected display given that the aircraft could be detected by several radars in some locations and the "system" generates an "agreed" position - for want of a better word?)

[The Chaser]

G'day scran

Ah the ol' bright displays eh .... shrimp boats and all before them new fangled lables came on to the scene :}

Pretty well, I'm about to dive out the door, will post the current stuff tonight ;)

Cheers

[Frank Arouet]

slagged and insulted

Now there's a couple of nasty words. Reminds me of the AOPA $hitfights.

Same blokes obviously.

[Jack Ranga]

It would appear Frank, that you can dish it out but can't hack it when it comes back at you ;)

[C-change]

G'day Dick, back again,

Thanks for providing some more info on "target resolution". I now know what you're on about. Hey, I'm all for it if industry is. As I said earlier, I'm just an employee and a line controller at that, and whilst I've been asked to provide my opinion over the years, that doesn't mean it will become a rule. Same goes for any suggestions made by the former UK, Candian controllers I've worked with. That happens in any industry, management don't always listen to the workers and don't always implement their staff's ideas. Thats life.
If you want these changes to happen, you know that you have to convince the airlines, ADF, AsA, CASA and a whole heap of organistaions that your planned change is safe and more efficient. No point banging on about RAAF leadership as it must be agreed to by many parties. What would be worse is if we ended up with a different Class C procedure in Military Rest. airpsace and another set of procedures for Civil Class C.


Now going back to your situation on the Willy VFR route. What your asking for is a completed change to the service provided in Class C depending upon the weather. Sure you can do it, but is that what you really want, so you can avoid the odd delay? I'll try to expalin below and this isn't intended to antagonise you.

The Air Ambulance always operate IFR and would have been conducting an ILS. That is why you were held. You were held to protect the missed approach path of that aircraft, otherwise you would have been allowed to transit along the coast. Once an aircraft is cleared for the ILS (or any instrument approach), that aircraft is also cleared to conduct the full MAP. The App controller has no choice but to protect the MAP. Its referred to as "Separation Assurance". It was brought in to stop controllers from winging it and plucking standards or separating based on aircraft performance. If the Air Ambulance was conducting a visual approach, different story. The TWR can then restrict them to remain in the circuit area (lots of options) and keep them away from yourself and maintain separation.

What your suggesting, is that you shouldn't have been held on the coast because the Air Ambulance intended to land on RWY12 and was never going to conflict with yourself. This is true, so long as they land successfully.
If they did conduct the MAP and you were allowed North bound, I reckon the two returns would have merged and the ATC would have had to prove vertical separation on the run, and thats not good. I'm assuming you still want IFR separated from VFR in class C? If you don't want IFR separated from VFR, then that is Class D. Thats why I thought you wanted TWR to have the control zone for in my earleir post. You can make control zones Class D and do exactly as you suggest with Radar Traffic advice but at this point in time, industry does not want it. As I said you have to convince more than just RAAF. You also suggested earlier that

In the Williamtown situation I referred to at the start of this thread, the extra workload on the controller by holding two aircraft can lead to reducing safety for the airline aircraft that he or she should be concentrating on. Anyway, this is what I am told by international air traffic control specialists.




In fact the opposite can happen. By letting aircraft run down to the absolute minimum, the controller becomes fixated on that particluar confliction and they forgot to scan the rest of the screen.
The 3NM standard. Some boffin once upon a time decided that the basic lateral separation was 1Nm between the possible positions of two aircraft. Tolerances are than added to come up with the appropriate separation standard. In the case of radar, an additional 1nm tolerance is added to each aircraft (allows for equipmemt errors) and thats how we got 3Nm radar within TMA/TCU's. 3Nm sounds big but if you stuff up and get below 3Nm, it doesn't leave you with a lot of room to fix it. Running IFR and VFR with just space between the returns, even in VMC, leaves no room for error, especially if they are moving at 5-7 Nm per minute. You run out of room pretty quickly .


Back to the Canberra TWR solution. Someone else pointed out why that worked in CB and not Willy. Thats why I asked if you requested direct to the field at anytime. If you did, TWR and APP can then do a quick bit of internal coordination as to the tracking of both aircraft and arrange who is separating you both. TWR can then apply visual separation and all are happy. I haven't worked Willy TWR for 12 years but I remember how difficult it is to see aircraft in the coastal route. It doesn't matter how much airspace the TWR has, or airspace class, the controller has to see both aircraft to apply visual separation and it is much easier if they are both tracking towards you, as opposed to underneath the IAP.

I've gone on enough for now, so I'll leave it at that. Hope it has helped out.

[The Chaser]

scran

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/172/172mfull.pdf

10.5.5 Separation Minima Based on ATS Surveillance Systems
10.5.5.1 Where:
(a) aircraft are in communication with and under the control of a terminal control unit or associated control tower; and
(b) the aircraft are:
(i) within 30 NM of a radar sensor, using military high definition (scan rate of 12 RPM or greater) Terminal Approach Radar (TAR) or primary data from a civil high definition TAR (scan rate of 16.4 RPM); or
(ii) within 100 NM of an MSSR sensor providing radar data to EUROCAT 2000 displays; and
(c) aircraft position is derived only from radar information;
the horizontal radar separation minimum is:
(d) 3 NM; or
(e) where a higher minimum applies under subsection 10.12.2.2 — that higher minimum.
10.5.5.2 If subsection 10.12.2.2 does not apply, the horizontal separation minimum based on radar or ADS-B information is:
(a) 5 NM; or
(b) if a higher minimum applies under subsection 10.12.2.2 — that higher minimum.
10.12.2.2 Distance-based wake turbulence separation

Position symbols

Apply separation based on the use of:

- Position symbols and/or PSR blips = So that the distance between the centres of the position symbols and/or PSR blips is never less than the prescribed minimum.
- Position symbols/PSR blips and SSR responses = So that the distance between the centre of the position symbols and/or the PSR blip and the nearest edge of the SSR response is never less than the prescribed minimum.
- SSR responses = So that the distance between the closest edges of the SSR responses is never less than the prescribed minimum.

Cheers :ok:

[scran]

Chaser - Thanks - hasn't changed. :ok: (And I only EVER used Shrimp boats during initial radar training.......;) )

C'change,

While I agree with all your statements about the Missed Approach path etc for ILS Rwy 12, I would temper it with some discussion. If the weather at the time was such that an ILS approach was required, I'd wonder if the weather was suitable for the VFR lane to be open. I'm going to assume the weather was such that the lane was suitable, and having ducked back to the thread start and checked Dick's brief on the weather - it clearly was.

If the Air Ambulance is conducting a practice ILS (just because it's IFR doesn't mean it HAS to do an instrument approach) then I think Dick has a point, in that holding aircraft in the lane where either a landing is assured, or should the aircraft not land, but be able to circle for an approach (ie - the weather is suitable for a visual circuit - a full missed approach is/will not be required) and therefore another form of separation could be applied (something simple like Air Amb remain over land with the coastal guy to remain east of the coast/over water) I, as a controller, would have been happy to let the lane guys continue the transit. Indeed I suspect I've done exactly this on several occassions, but can't recall any specifics (I last controled at Willy in 1985). That would be providing a "safe and expiditious" service................:E



This is based on MY experience, noting that I have not actively controlled since Nov 1992. Things/rules may well have changed in 18 years (despite what Dick says). :eek:



Oh, and Dick, thank you for the statement about light aircraft being difficult to see at 3nm even if alerted by a radar controller.

Says a lot from the greatest exponent of unalerted "see-and'avoid"............:rolleyes:

[The Chaser]

Willy DAP charts here

Airservices Australia - Aeronautical Information Package (AIP) (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/aip.asp)

ILS 12 - Missed Approach

Track 118deg, climb to 3100FT, or as directed by ATC

A couple of caveats though:-

1. We are assuming the cloud-base was as reported in this thread
2. We do not know what other IFR traffic may have been sequenced for the ILS (or other approaches) behind the Ambo (an IFR Ambo on crosswind for a visual circuit, and another IFR in IMC just shy of the IAF, or already into a/the procedure, and cleared ILS 12 (or other) approach = cleared right through to MAP, is not what I would call an acceptable use of the ‘1st in sight assured of a landing’ standard between two IFR's). In other words, a Missed + visual circuit may not have been available to the controller in that circumstance, on that day.
3. We do not know what other operational considerations were in play

On that basis, we need to be a tad careful second guessing the decisions made on the day. :ok:

[scran]

Chaser - agree ABSOLUTELY!!!

I wasn't there, so don't know what the full situation was. :ok:

I was not trying to second-guess the controller in all honesty - just offering an opinion. :E

An my opinion is that what happened, given what I know of the situation, seems quite reasonable. :ok:



But then again - I didn't start this ridiculous thread............:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[The Chaser]

.... this ridiculous thread............:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

... about says it all :D :ok:

[Dick Smith]

It appears to me from reading the above posts that when you join the military, every bit of initiative must be knocked out of you.

The reason I say this is if I heard that air traffic controllers in other countries were given greater responsibilities and this would reduce holding and facilitate moving traffic at high safety levels, I would certainly want to find out more about this system.

But do we see any interest in this here at all? No, presumably young military controllers are reading this thread – possibly even controllers who are currently operating at Williamtown and perhaps even the controller who kept me and the other aircraft holding in good visual conditions when a King Air was on a visual approach to runway 12.

But of course it’s different. Presumably in the military you are told to obey the rules, never ever promote something that could be better and then you’ll end up as the Chief of Defence. What other explanation can there be?

I have explained to you how in the past I have worked to introduce proven overseas procedures, and although these have been resisted for one or two years, once we introduced them they are embraced appreciatively by both pilots and air traffic controllers.

As I have said before – who would want to return to the procedures where we separated VFR from VFR in what was then called “primary control zones”?

What is also not commented upon is the fact that the airspace when just civilian traffic is operating at Williamtown normally goes to twenty-five nautical miles radius at ground level. Why should it be so big?

I remember before the initiatives I introduced, Coffs Harbour used to go to nineteen nautical miles to the south at ground level. It’s now far less than this, and there have never been any incidents and, as far as I can see, unnecessary workload has been reduced.

It’s almost as if the military can’t make any change at all.

The ridiculous size of the Richmond zone, which goes way out almost to Mount Wilson in the Blue Mountains at ground level where no IFR aircraft could possibly be operating at that level in that vicinity. Over the last two decades I have been told many times that this zone is going to be re-looked at and brought to a more modern size so the controllers can concentrate on real traffic – not some VFR helicopter flying along the mountain range twenty miles away from the tower. But it’s never happened.

I will say again – I can see why the military has a problem attracting air traffic control recruits. If asked, I would say under no circumstances join the military because it is quite clear that initiative is stifled, that they never copy the best from all around the world, and that they make hugely negligent mistakes like the Seasprite fiasco of $1.2 billion when no-one is held accountable in any way.

In fact, probably the opposite. If we really looked into it, we would probably find the person responsible for the $1.2 billion Seasprite loss – all less money available to pay Services’ staff decent salaries – has been promoted.

Keep your concrete minds closed as much as you like. One day we will get someone decent in a leadership position and that person will initiate the copying of procedures that are the best in the world and will allow air traffic controllers the latitude to make good, professional decisions of judgement without losing their license or being suspended.

Then we will have a better quality recruit and the controllers will derive greater job satisfaction. I can imagine their job satisfaction at the moment must be nearly zero knowing that they are using fifty-year-old outdated procedures and no-one is game to even look at what happens overseas and copy the best.

[YPJT]

It appears to me from reading the above posts that when you join the military, every bit of initiative must be knocked out of you.

Great way to endear yourself to others who have taken the time to reply to your inane rhetoric Dick.:mad:
So you didn't get your VFR clearance whilst flying up the coast well boo bloody hoo. Do you think you are the only pilot to be denied a clearance to fly your preferred route? Your childish foot stamping really makes me wonder about you.

Have a read of the news Dick, there are far more important things going on both here and abroad than you being inconvenienced.

Or maybe, just maybe, you are right. It's all a conspiracy against you. :rolleyes:

[max1]

Presumably in the military you are told to obey the rules, never ever promote something that could be better and then you’ll end up as the Chief of Defence. What other explanation can there be?

Dick,
I think that you can apply this to most things to do with anything government related. There have been many layers of management, command,etc created to insulate the 'status quo' and protect those at the top.

Having personally seen and been subject to, 'the wrath of management questioned' I can understand why people are hesitant to promote any new ideas or question anything management do.

[peuce]

And while we're at it ... what about those pesky Qantas pilots ?

I'm fed up with them sticking to their SOPs! Air Timbuckto pilots take short cuts and don't worry about small unimportant mechanical "anomolies". Harden up, you pussies! :(

Get me there quick ... and get me there, now!

If your bosses call you in for tea and bikkies ...tell 'em to get stuffed. Tell 'em how the rest of the world works. Tell 'em I insist that you start cutting corners.

Now, stop standing there with your mouths wide open ... get onto it! :eek:

[The Chaser]

Yes good point
One day we will get someone decent in a leadership position and that person will initiate the copying of procedures that are the best in the world
Such as publically funded Airports and ATS ... FAA style ;)

When are you going to insist on those changes Disk Smith ..... won't will ya, because that would require another '180degree shift' trophy on your crappa wall shelf :suspect:

[scran]

Dick - just don't get it - do you?

I gave an example above of when I was a Controller at Willy how I might have used "initiative" to solve the issue, using latitude to make good, professional decisions of judgement without losing tmy license or being suspended :eek:

And give it up about Sea Sprite will you!!!!!!!!!!

Get a life (elsewhere....................:ok: :ok: :ok:)

[C-change]

Dick,

I give up. Trying to debate anything with you is a waste of time. It is you that has the closed mind, you are unwilling to listen to anyone who has a different opinon to yourself, regardless of their occupation or experience. If someone doesn't agree with you, you get on here and respond with the "closed mind" line and run several issues into one to deflect their arguement. You demand people answer your questions but you ignore others. I asked you and so did others, why didn't you ask for climb, direct tracking. Why didn't you call Willy ATC once you landed? There might have been a reason why you were held that wasn't apparent to you at the time.

When I asked you to explain what you mean't by "Target Resolution Procedures" you said'

Basically, when aircraft are in VMC in Class C airspace the radar “blips” must not meet.

Not one pilot has come on here and supported your idea of space between radar returns in Class C, instead of the internationally excepted 3Nm separation standard. Every pilot I spoke to at work in the last 24hrs laughed at your suggestion.

It is clear that you are against everything the ADF does, you complain about airspace, procedures, being held twice in one year, you even said that ADF personnel deserve low morale and their leadership is crap. You also now claim to know why ATC recruiting is low and tried to link the Seasprite mess to ATC.

I'm now going to a fishing website where peoples opinons are are shared and apprecited. Enjoy those rate one turns.

[Chronic Snoozer]

I will say again – I can see why the military has a problem attracting air traffic control recruits. If asked, I would say under no circumstances join the military because it is quite clear that initiative is stifled, that they never copy the best from all around the world, and that they make hugely negligent mistakes like the Seasprite fiasco of $1.2 billion when no-one is held accountable in any way.


OMG Mods!? Isn't it about time you start deleting some of the Thread Generators' posts instead of mine?

This 'discussion' has become hysterical.

[Dick Smith]

YPJT - I’m actually not complaining about being held – that doesn’t worry me too much. It’s the fact that I like to be proud of Australia – it’s my country and the country I love. To know that other democracies use more modern procedures that save waste is what gets me.

It’s also the lies I have been told. This has been going on for over twenty-five years and I have been told numerous times by senior people in the military that the changes would be made and we would harmonise with the procedures as used in other leading aviation countries. This has not happened.

Most of you do not seem to understand that if the US procedures are allowed in Australia, a controller can still keep the three mile separation and still hold aircraft. It just allows the controller to make professional decisions.

If, in a country of over 300 million people with over 400,000 pilots and more than that many aircraft, the system can work with very high levels of safety, why can’t it be even considered here?

I will say again – the target resolution procedures are used between IFR and VFR aircraft in Class C airspace by the TRACON controllers. They have said to me that the system would grind to a halt if they could not use these procedures, and they found it hard to accept that Australia insisted on a three mile separation standard between IFR and VFR when VMC conditions existed.


max1 – thanks for agreeing with me, i.e. in things that are government-related that knock out any initiative. This does not have to be necessary. I know of leaders in government departments who have encouraged initiative and it’s worked well. That’s what I am pushing for in the military.


Peuce – your post makes out as if target resolution procedures are “short cuts”. They are not. They are a properly regulated procedure that has been used in the United States for over fifty years with high levels of safety.

You may as well say that ATC in Sydney no longer separating VFR from VFR is “taking a short cut”. It’s not. It’s just being professional.


Chaser – yes, I would love to have publicly funded airports and air traffic services as they do in the United States. The reason I don’t spend a lot of time on this is I believe people would say that a person like myself can well afford to pay the costs and that it would be a futile move anyway.


Scran – yes, I do “get it”. You are giving me an example of how a Williamtown Controller can use some initiative to solve an issue when there are some very tight restrictions on separation standards. Why are you against giving the controller the proven US system? Why wouldn’t you even consider it? Or why wouldn’t it even be tested in a simulator?


C-Change – you have distorted the meaning of target resolution procedures to pilots and that is why they have laughed. Did you explain that this procedure allows a controller to get aircraft closer than three miles in VMC so they can sight each other?

As you know, even at Sydney Airport and in most other airspaces, sight and follow instructions are often given. If it’s often given in Australia now, why can’t we use it to bring the separation standard down to a distance where you can actually sight the other aircraft? Now that would be logical.

I point out again – it’s up to the controller to decide whether to use this procedure.

By the way, I’m not against everything the ADF does. I am a great admirer of the active members of the ADF and I have even spent my time going on a tour to the Middle East to tell them this. However, I believe those at the coalface have been completely let down by those who move up into leadership positions.


Chronic Snoozer – No, the discussion hasn’t become hysterical. It is a fact of life that the military do have problems in attracting air traffic control recruits. That has been stated in different threads here. I understand the same situation exists at Airservices. What is the problem with stating facts?

Only one poster on this thread, max1, has explained what the problem is. Everyone else seems to defend the status quo. Why don’t you actually support us looking at giving military air traffic controllers extra responsibility as they have in the United States? Or are you suggesting that US controllers, both FAA employed and military, are more competent than ours? I don’t agree with this. As I have said consistently, our controllers are as good as any in the world. It’s just that the regulations and procedures they operate under are about fifty years out of date.

One day someone will actually go the USA and look at this procedure and realise that it will save unnecessary holding and reduce unnecessary costs.

It just makes me squirm as an Australian to see what the Williamtown controllers are forced to do knowing that it’s so unnecessary and is so demeaning for them as they are being treated like kindergarten children who cannot make professional judgements.

[The Chaser]

They said to you? .. that is authorative.

If IFR and VFR need not be (controller discretion) separated in VMC, there is a class of airspace for just that purpose:-

ICAO CLASS D

But then US airports moving the amount of IFR (including RPT) traffic that YWLM does, are not class D ... are they! :=

[NTZ]

But of course it’s different. Presumably in the military you are told to obey the rules, never ever promote something that could be better and then you’ll end up as the Chief of Defence. What other explanation can there be?

Another (plausible) explanation - You could be wrong.

once we introduced them they are embraced appreciatively by both pilots and air traffic controllers.

Can you give an example of one of those 'embraced appreciatively' procedures (and I mean 'embraced appreciatively', not thrust upon them until they were forced to adapt)?

Only one poster on this thread, max1, has explained what the problem is.

Actually, only one poster has agreed with your explanation. That's a little different than 'explained the problem'.

[peuce]

Dick,

I must admit I'm having a bit of trouble trying to track down much info on this "target resolution" separation standard you want brought in. In the FAA documents, I'm only finding the "3nm within 40nm of the radar and 5nm outside it" standard.

There is also the provision for the Controller to assign a "Visual Separation" standard when:


Either the Tower Controller can see the two aircraft, or
The VFR can see the IFR and he accepts responsibility for maintaining separation


I can't find any hybrid standard where the VFR accepts the visual separation responsibility AND the Controller has to keep "Target resolution" separation. It seems to me it's either one or the other.

I could be wrong and I would appreciate a reference if you have one.

[max1]

From what I can glean from this debate.
Air ambos were doing an ILS (practice?) on Rwy12 at Willy in VMC(?). Dick was attempting to transit the eastern VFR lane but would have been in conflict with a missed approach.
Willy controller held Dick clear until the Air Ambos landed in accordance with Willy procedures.
Dick wonders why we can't use other procedures that allow him to transit. The chances of the RFDS having to actually do a missed approach in VMC was probably less than bugger all. This is all predicated on the above scenario being correct.

Dick can't work out why the controller can't just use a bit of discretion in this specific case to allow his transit?

This is where I feel empathy for the controller, if they had decided to 'bend' a rule that was designed for an IFR aircraft doing an ILS in IMC with a very real chance of a missed approach, and the controller decided that it is VMC and there is bugger all chance of a missed approach so I'll just let the VFR transit the lane and then something happened, e.g. runway occupied, the powers that be would not look at the actions of the controller and decide that what they were doing was reasonable and safe in the conditions of THAT day.
They would appease the media and ergo, public opinion with a headline " Controller sacked who flouted rules and endangered Australian of the Year Dick Smith".

Some of the rules could be modified to allow more discretion but this would require someone with the moral strength inside the organisations to stand by it. This is not Dick, he is now outside the tent.

Unfortunately Australia is now infested (this is not confined to just Aviation but we seem to punch above our weight) with managers and leaders who will not make any kind of contentious decision that may come back to bite them on the arse.

Some political figure in the recesses of time said ' That a politician thinks of the next election, and a statesmen thinks of the next generation'. You could take out politician and election and replace it with manager and, promotion or bonus. We are in need of some Aviation statesmen.

[NTZ]

Sacked? Willful violation = negligence = culpability. Had the Ambo conducted a missed approach and either Dick, the Ambulance or any of their passengers been injured or killed in the process, criminal charges could be just around the corner.

I do agree that any system that doesn't evolve, will stagnate. Technology alone is leaping ahead faster than the procedures that leverage it, let alone modern practices emerging from years of experience, but the argument that 'it works over there and therefore it will work here' is fundamentally flawed.

The US system is not without its problems and before we inherit those, along with the touted benefits, I'd actually like to hear from an expert.

As to this particular dilemma, the procedure is in place to protect the Air Ambulance - which I believe it did. I can't help but wonder how he would feel about a GA pilot, who had the option to use the airspace or avoid it, dictating how he should be kept protected from other aircraft during his (or her) critical stages of flight.

[boofhead]

I learned to fly in Aus and bought into the myth that it is done better there in every way, and the safety record is the best in the world. Since leaving and flying almost everywhere else in the world I have learned that this is not true. More regulation does not make flying safer, just as more government does not make life better. If Australian rules for aviation, including Air Traffic, Pilot Certification, Maintenance etc were applied thoughout the world aviation would come to a crawl and thousands of people would die.
I don't know Dick Smith, but I appreciate his enthusiasm, and am always amazed at the way he is attacked and insulted when he offers an opinion. Is it the great Australian cringe? The Tall Poppy Syndrome?
Grow up fellas, open your eyes to the great big world out there and be prepared to learn something new.

[NTZ]

Shows you military blokes will do everything you can to resist change and never copy better proven procedures from others.

You deserve to have low morale.

Boofhead - With a response like like that, you are amazed that he is attacked and insulted? Now I'm amazed.

[Jack Ranga]

Boofhead,

NOBODY in Australian aviation denies that there are a couple of bureaucracies out of control. Over regulation is an understatement. Who said we do things best anyway?

Personally I think the whole industry should be scrapped and re-built.

The problem with Dick a few of us have, is he attacks the people least able to effect change. It's friggin' easy to attack the 'weakest link'

[scran]

Boofhead - dissappointing post from you. :=

We are not attacking the tall poppy - the tall poppy started all this with a ridiculous triad against people who cannot defend themselves.......



Max1 - well done - you have agreed with EXACTLY what I suggested I might have done - but Dick keeps telling me I'm wrong, or don't understand, or whatever (I find it hard to follow his argument - when did I ever say I would not consider the revised options?) :rolleyes:

Hey Dick - how do you know I would not support a trial of the procedures you suggest? Where did I EVER say I would not? See why we find you hard to follow?

Oh, and here is an AMAZING point (and Boofhead - you learnt to fly here didn't you?)

Military Controllers at Pearce use EXACTLY some of the procedures you suggest - in that in the Pearce training areas - they only provide IFR separation between IFR aircraft - and provide traffic info on the VFR's. Only between military aircraft it's true - but they do use the rules. (How do I know this? I was Senior Air Traffic COntrol officer at Pearce during the ATC part of my career) :eek:



And DIck, I last actively controlled in 1992, and left the military (after numerous staff positions outside the ATC category) in 2007.

[Dick Smith]

Chaser - Wow! I can see why you post anonymously! You wouldn’t want to disclose your real name given your obvious lack of understanding of something really simple.

Chaser, I am talking about target resolution procedures in Class C airspace.

No, I don’t want the airspace to be changed to Class D. I simply want us to look at highly proven international procedures for Class C airspace.

I know set in concrete in most minds is that the separation standard in Class C shall be three nautical miles – remember, it was no doubt written in the Bible or the Koran and it’s an act of faith from now on for most of you.

But in fact, what happens if another country shows that a different separation standard is very safe when visual conditions exist? Why shouldn’t we at least look at that standard, especially if it allows a country to save costs and be more competitive in an international marketplace?


NTZ – you seem to have misunderstood. I am not wrong in stating that the US has target resolution procedures in Class C terminal airspace. It is a fact.

Yes, I could be wrong in stating that I believe our controllers could take on such responsibilities here and provide high levels of safety. That is why the issue should be looked at and discussed.

As an example of procedures that have been embraced appreciatively and not “thrust upon them” would be the change in separation “standards” in primary control zones.

Up until about 1984 or thereabouts, controllers had to separate VFR aircraft in “primary” control zones with the same standard as IFR aircraft and as if they were all in cloud. It took nearly three years of hard work fighting resistance to change to bring in the international procedure where VFR aircraft are not separated from VFR aircraft in that type of airspace.

As I have stated before on this thread, even though there was great resistance to change and people were saying that VFR aircraft would hit VFR aircraft if they were not separated by air traffic control by at least three nautical miles, in fact this did not happen.

No, controllers and pilots were not forced to adapt, although I do remember an hilarious article by Tom Ballantyne in the Sydney Morning Herald where the Qantas Chief Pilot stated they were opposed to this new separation technique. Of course I was able to point out it was only between VFR aircraft, and as Qantas don’t normally fly VFR it didn’t affect them in any way. But it was a great example of resistance to change.

If you would like me to, I will find the article from one of my old scrapbooks, scan it and place it on here. It will be a great example of concrete-mindedness.


Peuce – I am not into the technicalities of how it works, but I will make an enquiry with one of my US ATC friends and get the exact details for you. I would have thought as an air traffic controller you may have done that in the last twenty-five years, i.e. wouldn’t it be great to know what your colleagues do in other countries, especially if they use a better system. It’s obvious that you have never asked.

One thing I can assure you is that in flying in US Class C airspace in similar circumstances, an aircraft would not be held.

As I have pointed out before, when the Williamtown airspace becomes a C-TAF, aircraft do not hold in the light aircraft lane when IFR aircraft are on an approach to runway 12. I have never even heard an airline pilot ask for a VFR aircraft in the lane to hold. That would be completely stupid, as they are miles apart.


max1 – no, it’s not quite Dick wonders why we can’t use other procedures that allow him to transit It’s actually “Dick wonders why we can’t use procedures that have been proven safe in the United States and Canada”.

max1, I am sure you agree this is slightly different to your simplistic explanation.

Under no circumstances do I want the controller to “bend a rule”. I am totally opposed to that. I simply want proven regulations that are safe and can facilitate traffic without unnecessary holding and financial waste.


NTZ – what you leave out of your examples is the more likely case where a single-engine aircraft is held orbiting over a rough ocean and a family of four or five are drowned when an engine failure occurs. Isn’t that an important part of the equation? If it can be shown that there is a proven safe system that allows the aircraft on approach to have very high levels of safety even if it does a missed approach, and also for single-engine aircraft not to be held over water, wouldn’t it be logical to look at it?


Boofhead – how right you are. When I headed off on my world flight in 1982, I left Australia thinking we were the leaders in the world. It was after the first few days of flying across the United States after departing from Fort Worth that I realised we were thirty years out of date. It was a classical example of a bureaucracy that had lost its way and was not updating to modern, proven procedures.

Since then, some of the procedures have been forcefully updated, but there are still many which no-one has ever looked at and copied the best that is proven.

I compare our airspace system with the Nomad aircraft – undeniably one of the worst aircraft that has ever been built in the world, whereas I compare the airspace system of the United States with a Boeing 747. I know what aircraft I would prefer to be flying in.

Posters on this thread would be justifying that a Nomad aircraft was better because it was built here, and we know best and we know everything, whereas most rational people would prefer to go with the 747 – mainly because it has had squillions of dollars spent on it, it operates in a highly litigious society and it has had a very large number of flight hours to prove the resultant safety levels.

I know which aircraft I would prefer to fly in.


Jack Ranga – you say
The problem with Dick a few of us have, is he attacks the people least able to effect change. It's friggin' easy to attack the 'weakest link'
Jack, have you actually read my posts? I think not. I have made it clear that I do not blame the workplace controllers. In fact, I have consistently said they are as good as any in the world. I blame the decision makers or, more to the point, non-decision makers above them. Don’t you understand this? How can I make it clearer? It is the military hierarchy who should be making these decisions but who don’t, and they are abrogating their responsibilities to the people who report to them.

One day, I can assure you, we will get someone competent in charge of military air traffic control and very quickly they will look around the world, copy the best that is proven, incorporate it with what we do here, and our controllers will be treated as professionals for the first time.

[The Chaser]

Boof

Come now, lets not be precious. Much of the change agenda in aviation administration (including ATM) in the last 20+ years has been a mix of false starts, half measures, and attempted transplantation of ‘selective’ aspects of O/S systems.

The problem has been and remains the difference between ‘perception’ and that of ‘reality’. Sure, the US has a system that by and large works OK given the traffic volumes they move. It is however unrealistic to expect to transplant that system in to Australia without the bones as well. For example:-

The US system is funded via the public purse. It has and continues to pay for the massive infrastructure that supports that more fluid arrangement i.e. Massive PSR and SSR radar coverage (being augmented with ADS-B), Massive ATC and Flight Service networks (the number of square miles each individual US controller positions manage below A100 is a fraction of that of Australian Sectors and TCU’s), the cost of which would, to quote you:-
aviation would come to a crawl
Or, become so expensive, only ticketholders would fly (where User Pays is King i.e. Australia)

Airport infrastructure, etc etc …the list goes on, and on. It is all well and good to suggest copying good O/S practices, but it requires a knowledge of what the practices actually are, in different airspace volumes, and what is required to facilitate that, and if those practices and their foundation is viable in a different country with different mechanisms of support.

Emotive calls such as yours:
and thousands of people would die are nothing more than playing to an uninformed public to generate interest, and scare Pollies who in the main have no clue about the specifics of aviation or ATM, tis’ the last line of attack often used by one media tart when all other ‘I believe’ or ‘they tell me’ arguments have run aground.

The reality is that Australia has in the main been very lucky in recent years that we have not had a major hull loss (as has happened O/S in places Like the US). I’m am not referring to operations within our long established CTA/R areas.. no, I say lucky because, much of that record is down to nothing more than last-line risk minimisation, by ATC who do what they can, when they can, and by our pilot fraternity (wanting to stay alive) most of whom, it seems, have to date have run the gauntlet of OCTA operations (in large, fast aircraft, with pretty ordinary visual look-out ability) thankfully without requiring new strides and a stiff whiskey after landing. There are however more than a few instances of where luck has come perilously close to running out (ATSB data on ACAS RA and NMAC). Why has this OCTA roll of the dice been allowed to continue?

The number of areas where large passenger transport aircraft operate without ATC (and/or synthetic) assistance in this country is, well IMHO, a national disgrace. This is where the focus should be.

It is incongruous on the one hand to suggest ”thousands of people would die”, and in the same breath, argue that Mr Smith is suggesting good change by having radar controllers in a busy terminal area, allow aircraft position symbols to come within a whisker of each other in VMC, and at the same time call it “a procedure” that for all intents and purposes, amounts to a different classification of airspace i.e. Class D But that is not the rub, the rub is, that even in class D, two aircraft would not EVER be put in to such an unsafe proximity, and certainly not without a visual standard (pilot to pilot or ATC applied) and full consideration of other potentially fatal aspects such as wake turbulence.

What is invariably left out of these discussions is that the rule set for particular airspace volumes must be set for the worse case average. In other words, Class C is generally utilised where traffic volumes and mix (including any other pertinent complexities) dictate that a minimum separation (rule set) threshold is set to ensure that both pilots and ATC have the required distance buffers and time to manage conflicts without the temptation to run things too tight and then find themselves in an irretrievable situation due other traffic distraction, frequency loading, etc etc … All aspects of the infrustructure available must be considered in determining how close things can be run .... the bigger picture!!!

How did we get to this point?

Australia, and dare I say it, more particularly, it’s ATM regulatory function (nowadays CASA) has been subject to continual interference from political expediency agenda’s (cost cutting, slash, burn, government profit/return, better do what he says otherwise we will cop a flogging in the court of public opinion etc etc) for more than 20+ years. Ambling from this direction to that, more often that not as a result of the foot stamping of a few who have a soapbox, the ear of pollies, whom invariably have one eye permanently, firmly fixed on re-election, and will do almost anything to avoid a public stoush with a media tart throwing plastic mud.

It has got to stop.

A far as Airspace management goes, the regulator has a clear set of processes for addressing flight safety risks in an appropriate manner. It (CASA) must be left, unhindered, to do its job with industry, which, despite the frustration we all feel for much of what emanates from that dam’d building in Can’tberra, it would do the job (hand in hand with the various industry sectors) properly, in an objective, transparent, and proper way if those responsible were given a threat free environment in which to do it. It is too easy (and convienient) to ear (and keyboard) bash the folks at CASA (OAR), the problem exists above them, way above them.

There is no way this debacle would still be going on after 20+ years were it not a tug of war between those that operate and fly within the system, and those that think it is a Lego set they can play with as they see fit.

So no, this is not about ‘Tall Poppies’, this about resolution of a festering problem that has gone on WAY, WAY to long!

[scran]

Dick - the last para of your post says it all.

"One day, I can assure you, we will get someone competent in charge of military air traffic control and very quickly they will look around the world, copy the best that is proven, incorporate it with what we do here, and our controllers will be treated as professionals for the first time. "



How many times do you need to be told that Military ATC conform the the accepted international practices, as designed by ICAO, that are agreed to by the Australian representative to that organisation (ICAO). That is - Air Services (or it may be CASA now - again, I've not been directly involved in ATC since the early 90's).


Military ATC cannot adopt a different set of rules to that of Air Services - can you imagine the pandamonium that would ensure then???

For god's sake - WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!

GET REAL!

[peuce]

Dick,

I am not into the technicalities of how it works, but I will make an enquiry with one of my US ATC friends and get the exact details for you

You are trying to force a procedure on a whole country, yet ... you're "not into the technicalities of how it works". If I walked in CASA's office and tried to do the same, I would be laughed out of court. If it's so right for us ... show us what IT is.

This only goes to support The Chaser's point that ATM in Australia is being developed by Political Interference, not Technical Analysis.

I would have thought as an air traffic controller you may have done that in the last twenty-five years, i.e. wouldn’t it be great to know what your colleagues do in other countries, especially if they use a better system. It’s obvious that you have never asked.

Another attempted attack on the man, not the argument.

I have never been an ATC .... bastards! :suspect:
If I was, I wouldn't rely on what my mate overseas brags about doing or not doing, after a few beers at the bar ... I'd want to see the regulations. As you said, we don't want to bend the rules.


When you can show me the regulated procedure (which I have been unable to find) then I'll happily consider it, in relation to our environment.

P.S. Do helicopters only have engine failures over water? ... scaredy cats!:uhoh:

[boofhead]

I see someone pointing out how the system does not work as well as it should and the result is an attempt to shout him down, including personal attacks. Dick is not criticising the persons who are manning the ATC desk, but the system. If you stopped shouting long enough, you might even come to agree with him.

[peuce]

Hey Boofhead,

I think you need to get out more often ... and read some of the posts on here a bit closer.

And don't worry, Dick'll be alright. He's a tough customer and he's frequented these here parts for many moons. He can definitely take care of himself.

We would treat Dick with more respect if only he would argue with facts.
He continues to frustrate us with rhetoric, heresay, I belives, I have been told ... blah, blah, blah

Aviation IS an exact science ... safety depends on it. We welcome well researched and well presented logical argument here, at any time.

[NTZ]

Dick,

Yes, I could be wrong in stating that I believe our controllers could take on such responsibilities here and provide high levels of safety.

That was what I am referring to (although the slant you put on it is interesting; implying perhaps that the controllers currently do not provide high levels of safety) and to date, nobody here has actually argued against trialling/examining new procedures. It's the motivation and the methodology of your arguments that concern me.

Rather than tout the benefits of such reform, you chose to target those who apparently oppose them and label them as incompetents. Additionally you specifically target the Military for complying with standards laid out in the Manual of Air Traffic Services, an Australian document, not a military one. What about AsA? Are they incompetent too?

peuce is absolutely right. If you actually produced an argument based on real and relevant facts, this thread would have taken a different turn.

In response to your example provided, I have no qualms admitting when I am wrong - I stand corrected. Can't argue with facts.

[Jack Ranga]

Comprehension as well as spelling is a problem here :ugh:

[C-change]

Hey Dick, I'm back,

What can I say, I'm a fisherman and I have taken the bait.

If you really, really, want to introduce your Class C procedure, go right ahead. You know what you need to do to get it done, yet your still here bleating to us that our minds are closed etc and unwilling to adopt change. Nothing could be further from the truth. Personally, I'm all for change, if thats what industry wants, thats fine, I'll do it, as will most controllers. In fact, we usually get told to deal with it and get on with the new procedure.

Scran mentioned earlier some of the Pearce proceudres. This is one of many examples that shows that you don't understand everything about Defence. AsA and CASA (as you know) make the rules for civil aircraft. The Manual of Air Traffic Services (joint MIL Civil document) has a paragraph that allows the commander of a Military base to reduce the separation standards in MATS, at their base. This allows the Military to be more flexible in many situations based on aircraft and airspace than you can imagine. There are too many examples to list but at Willy for example the Tower controller can land as many FA18s on the RWY as he or she can fit. Sight and follow, and assigning pilot visual separtion occurs everyday around the country, both Mil and Civil airspace. There are additional waivers to Wake Turb, IFR instrument training with VFR procedures. You would love it !

So please stop going on about ATC and in particular Military ATC having closed minds. If you want the Class C radar service changed, go ahead and prove to industry thats its safe and efficient.

[peuce]

Boofhead,

It's Friday arvo and you've got me going now ...

I learned to fly in Aus and bought into the myth that it is done better there in every way, and the safety record is the best in the world. Since leaving and flying almost everywhere else in the world I have learned that this is not true. More regulation does not make flying safer, just as more government does not make life better.

Well, you're a slow learner ... we've known that for ages. You won't find many on here arguing with you. You may find some (including me) who think that we HAD a pretty good system, but it's been so bastardised over the last 20 years that no one quite knows where it's at. And don't start us on Regulatory Reform ! But that's in the hands of our masters ... not much we can do.

We, as an Industry, have adopted, and adapted to, multiple changes, false starts and rollbacks over the last 20 years ... so don't try playing the " resistance to change" card with us. We have accepted so much bad change that we've finally drawn a line in the sand ... you want to make more changes ... then show us the prepared proposal first.

What does it look like?
What problem does it solve?
How will it improve safety?
How will it improve efficiency?
Do we have the resources for it?
Emma chisit?

If you (that is, anyone) can't answer these questions satisfactorily ... then bugger off and come back when you can :p

[boofhead]

You have a good point. I still hold my Aus licences and am frankly afraid to come back to fly in Aus because it has changed so much since I was there and most of it for the worst. I fly mainly in Alaska and it is about as free as I can imagine it can be, except when the pollies come around with their TFRs. I fly single pilot IFR in multi turbines, skis and floats in 60 year old airplanes, teach advanced Garmin g100 procedures etc all with just a licence and instrument/instructor rating. I fly Cessna 150 airplanes with only a VOR and VHF radio in the same airspace the 747s rumble around in, at night and in cloud.
I keep my instrument rating current simply by using it, and can take a guy who has just bought a taildragger neither of us has ever flown before and teach him how to do it safely without any flying school or club or CASA being involved.
The point has already been made that we mix IFR and VFR, all types and speeds right inside a major international airport without any fuss or hassle. Even LAX will allow GA airplanes, and they have a great corridor right over the top that is free to use without any ATC participation, just a transponder and a radio call. The US is also a member of ICAO, yet the two systems are chalk and cheese.
Why is aviation so much easier here? Because the pilots want it that way.
The cost of GA is borne by the users in the form of a gas tax, not the convoluted fee structure you labour under.
We fly with terrain and weather not seen in Aus, yet we maintain a level of safety that, even taking Alaska into account, is better than that in Aus. Is not safety the goal? (yes I know that safety stats are not much use, since the measuring is different and no-one really knows how much flying is done so they are not much better than educated guesses).
If the way it is done in Aus was better, other countries would be copying you, but they don't because it is not better. How much do you spend as a GA pilot renewing your instrument rating or instructor rating every year? Can you even afford to hold the rating? How much does your medical cost? Do you feel safer or better because of the money you pay?
So yeah, I can give you an example of a better system, one that works in a state the same geographical size as Aus with a population of less than a million people, and also in some of the world's most busy airspace, successfully and relatively safely for less cost. Even with its faults it is way ahead of what you suffer with, but until you see that, nothing will change.
I know Dick can handle the aggro, he probably delights in it, but my point is that you should not shoot the messenger; if there are to be changes they will not come from the top. Argue the point, not the man.

[Jack Ranga]

I think you're missing one big point here boofhead, aviation in the States is treated as national infrastructure, there's a big difference between user pays (dis-proportionatly) and national infrastructure. And the fuel tax certainly wouldn't pay for everything.

The FIRST thing that Dick needs to fix is that. If CASA can run round willy-nilly charging you for EVERYTHING they do, the're going to keep doing it aren't they? And they are going to invent new things to charge you for aren't they? If they had to justify to Government every cent they spent under the previous system then maybe they'd think about what they spent.

CASA are the ones making aviation un-affordable followed by the disgraceful sell off of the airports I used to own. I see some of them are now 'begging' for aircraft owners to come back with freebie month deals :yuk: coz we're all rich aren't we!

Fix that Dick, start at the head first, the poor plonker at the end of the system can't do anything for you I'm afraid.

[boofhead]

I'll give that to you, no government will willingly give up control/money. But if there was enough pressure from the users, maybe? Didn't New Zealand do it?

[The Chaser]

Boof

No doubt, Alaska is one of the more challenging environments on the planet. :ok:

http://www.asias.faa.gov/aviation_studies/alaska_study/alaskastudy.pdf

The data breakdown on page 31 of the link is instructive. Note the collision statistics - Midair - 20, 12 of which were fatal, one of which involved a Part 135 aircraft.

Do you think ADS-B and GNSS in Alaska was an FAA priority by happenstance? ;)

[LeadSled]

The US system is funded via the public purse.

Chaser,

Look a little deeper at the Aviation Trust Fund, and where the cash comes from, the airline passenger ticket tax, and a fuel tax for everybody else.

Yes, there is a measure of taxpayer funding, but that is far from the whole story.

Given that, at any hour of the day or night, there are 6000 IFR aircraft give or take, in the air over the US lower 48, controller sectors being smaller than Australia is a meaningless comparison.

Would somebody like to quote a number (even the peak will do, not a mean) of the number of IFR aircraft in Australia domestic FIRs --- to compare with the US.

As for the Williamtown "problem", "risk management" gone mad. The probability of the Ambo. trainer hitting an aircraft going down the VFR lane is so remote that it would be well below ALARP.

Somebody in the military brass should re-read the Common Risk Management Framework document, after all, they are signatories. If this agreement was adhered to, the Williamtown problems would evaporate ---- but don't hold your breath.

Why does Australia have such an obsession with mid-air collisions, when we have some of the world's lowest density airspace. When mod-air collisions don't even appear on the list of Australia's top air safety problems ---- and this is not because we are "so good" at CNS/ATM.

Tootle pip!!

[The Chaser]

Lead

You highlight exactly the counter point/s (to your argument):-
Look a little deeper at the Aviation Trust Fund, and where the cash comes from, the airline passenger ticket tax, and a fuel tax for everybody else.

Yes, there is a measure of taxpayer funding, but that is far from the whole story.
Exactly what we have been pointing out, Australia does not have the same support mechanisms (we had similar before 1996). The two support systems are worlds (literally) apart in size and type.
Given that, at any hour of the day or night, there are 6000 IFR aircraft give or take, in the air over the US lower 48, controller sectors being smaller than Australia is a meaningless comparison.
No, it goes to highlight the difference. The comparison is valid in the context in which it is made i.e.

The US has a massive system, funded differently (far less real cost recovery at the GA end of the spectrum), and that massive system is scaled into smaller chunks of airspace with PSR, SSR, TRACON, number of controllers etc etc so the traffic, and airspace rules are manageable.

For the purpose of the Williamtown procedures discussion, the comparison being made goes to the size of airspace, screen scale used by App controllers at Williamtown verses the average US TRACON, and therefore the type and relative size of displayed aircraft symbols.

3NM can be 1 centimetre apart (larger scale) centre to centre, or 5 centimetres apart (smaller scale) centre to centre. Surely even you can see the comparison relevance!?!
Would somebody like to quote a number (even the peak will do, not a mean) of the number of IFR aircraft in Australia domestic FIRs --- to compare with the US.
Comparing Apples and Walnuts is meaningless without also comparing the different scale of airspace, equipment and the human organics operating it.
As for the Williamtown "problem", "risk management" gone mad. The probability of the Ambo. trainer hitting an aircraft going down the VFR lane is so remote that it would be well below ALARP.
On that day, in the ‘reported’ circumstances (assuming nothing else was going on), I’d agree. But anyone with even the most basic risk management knowledge knows that it ain’t always going to be VMC, with only one IFR and VFR at any one time. As I said earlier, risk management MUST ensure that the worse case (known traffic scenarios and volumes) is catered for in the required thresholds, i.e meet ALARP. If you are saying the threshold rules at YWLM are NOT resonable because a VFR might cop a small delay every now and then (depending on the clearance requested), then I reckon you are pushing the preverbial bum mud up hill!
Somebody in the military brass should re-read the Common Risk Management Framework document, after all, they are signatories.
CASA set the rules!!!
If this agreement was adhered to, the Williamtown problems would evaporate
Assuming you are mean that Mr Smith whining about a small delay is ‘a problem’. Are you suggesting the airspace should be another classification??
If so, could you cite a US example which is NOT class C, which moves as many RPT, fast jet military, IFR and VFR as Williamtown?
---- but don't hold your breath.
OK, I won’t
Why does Australia have such an obsession with mid-air collisions, when we have some of the world's lowest density airspace.
As well as some of the largest CTA/R volumes controlled by the least number of controllers … but then our safety record in CTA/R is pretty good (non-fatal) compared with the US (see the previous link) …. The problem is not CTA/R … it is OCTA. But feel free to waffle on about other things.
When mod-air collisions don't even appear on the list of Australia's top air safety problems ---- and this is not because we are "so good" at CNS/ATM.
Insulting … considering our track record in CTA/R (with the exception of Class E). Someone once recently made the point that the US system is not the panacea, particularly given the amount of re-classification of D and E to C in recent years. There is only one reason for that …. The Incident and Accident data!!!!

Poodle Tip!!

[Flying Binghi]

Why does Australia have such an obsession with mid-air collisions

Simple, we don't have an obsession. If we did, every Oz aircraft would by now have a TCAD, TCAS or similar..:hmm:




.

[The Chaser]

Binga .. check that fly ol' mate :8
Simple, we don't have an obsession. If we did, every Oz aircraft would by now have a TCAD
.... you bought one :} :D :E .... but I would never ever suggest you were obsessed :p ... neeeeeewwwwww not AT ALL :}

[Flying Binghi]

Binga .. check that fly ol' mate http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/nerd.gif
Quote:
Simple, we don't have an obsession. If we did, every Oz aircraft would by now have a TCAD
.... you bought one http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif :D http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif .... but I would never ever suggest you were obsessed http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/tongue.gif ... neeeeeewwwwww not AT ALL http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif



The Chaser, apparently you now think i have an aircraft..:hmm:

via ADS B and ATM,#239; have you managed to reach that RYAN invoice yet? ... it'd be in the MS FS 9/X folder http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/tongue.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif ... I'd reckon http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif







.

[The Chaser]

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/435728-ads-b-atm-6.html#post6171510
as i've pointed out before, i've had a Ryan TCAD in my spam can for a while now (TCAD and TCAS and the like have been around for years) and i can see traffic out to twelve miles, and ah could 'see' further if i spent more money
aaaaand a few posts later
my aircraft 'costs' folder is on the shelf behind me though i just caint lean far enuf over in my chair to reach it...maybe tommorow.
... well do ya own a RYAN equipped 'spam can' or not? .... or are you fibbing and it really is in the MS FS 9/X folder :E

[boofhead]

Off-topic but I fly two airplanes that have TCAD and they only give a warning if I already can see the traffic. If I know the traffic is there but have not yet sighted it, the TCAD does not tell me about it. Pretty useless piece of equipment, that.
TCAS works well, if all the traffic has a transponder, but TCAD does not cut it.
Capstone is pretty good in radar coverage especially, but that is way too expensive for the average GA airplane.

Back on topic, there are plenty of examples in the US system that allow for GA airplanes to fly corridors or flight lanes around Class B or C airspace, with minimum delays and in many cases no communications air-to-ground. A 20 or 30 minute delay when it is not required for safety reasons could lead to a fuel shortage or unnecessary rush, and could encourage some pilots to turn off the transponder and sneak through, leading to a greater chance of midair. The usual Class C only goes 5 miles at the surface, so mostly it is avoidable.

Take a look at this and see the LAX Special Flight Rules Area for an example.
ChartView by MyAirplane.com (http://chartviewer.myairplane.com/gateway.php?ChartType=sectional&ChartName=Los%20Angeles)

[Dick Smith]

Boofhead, thanks but they just don't get it.

I am willingly to cover the cost of a Willy controller traveling to Anchorage to see how they operate ATC with IFR and VFR traffic.

Modern procedures are the way to do it.

But minds are closed here, they fear change!

[Jack Ranga]

Not closed Dick, but you can't change the system at the coal front. Like I said in a previous post, we work to rules (and for good reason) if you want them changed you need to go above our heads. I could go to Alaska and see lots of things that I think are a good idea and would like to use but it matters a rats clacker if I'm not allowed to use them.

[Flying Binghi]

I fly two airplanes that have TCAD and they only give a warning if I already can see the traffic. If I know the traffic is there but have not yet sighted it, the TCAD does not tell me about it. Pretty useless piece of equipment, that.
TCAS works well, if all the traffic has a transponder, but TCAD does not cut it.


Hmmm, well, if yer dont like it yer better just have a look-see at what else is available..:)

" Designed to be powerful yet easy on the budget, SkyWatch is the ideal traffic advisory system for general aviation, fixed-wing and helicopter applications. SkyWatch monitors the airspace around an aircraft and indicates where to look for nearby transponder-equipped aircraft that may pose a collision threat — providing the “big picture” in traffic awareness at a fraction of the cost of TCAS. After receiving replies to its Mode C type interrogations, the SkyWatch system computes the responding aircraft’s range, bearing, relative altitude and closure rate — predicting potential traffic conflicts within an eleven mile range. Aural traffic alerts are annunciated through the aircraft’s existing audio system, and visual targets are displayed using TCAS-like symbols..."

L-3 Communications -> Products & Services -> SkyWatch Collision Avoidance Systems (http://www.l-3com.com/products-services/productservice.aspx?type=ps&id=447)






.

[Jack Ranga]

Any chance you found the cost of the TCAD Bingster/T28D/Joker10?

[The Chaser]

Disk Smith,

It is a little rich to suggest we have closed minds when you are:-
not into the technicalities of how it works
We are in case you had not noticed! :hmm:

ANC - Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport | SkyVector (http://skyvector.com/airport/ANC/Ted-Stevens-Anchorage-International-Airport)
Airport Communications

D-ATIS: 118.4
ANCHORAGE TOWER: 118.3 257.8
ANCHORAGE GROUND: 121.9 338.25
ANCHORAGE APPROACH: 118.6(250-330 ABV 1500 FT) 118.6(331-045 ABV 2500 FT) 119.1(250-330 1500 FT & BLO) 119.1(331-045 2500 FT & BLO) 123.8(206-249 ALL ALTS) 126.4(046-205 ALL ALTS) 134.1 257.9(046-205 ALL ALTS) 257.9(206-249 ALL ALTS) 290.5(250-330 ABV 1500 FT) 290.5(331-045 ABV 2500 FT) 363.2(250-330 1500 FT & BLO) 363.2(331-045 2500 FT & BLO)
ANCHORAGE DEPARTURE: 118.6(250-330 ABV 1500 FT) 118.6(331-045 ABV 2500 FT) 119.1(250-330 1500 FT & BLO) 119.1(331-045 2500 FT & BLO) 123.8(206-249 ALL ALTS) 126.4(046-205 ALL ALTS) 257.9(046-205 ALL ALTS) 257.9(206-249 ALL ALTS) 290.5(250-330 ABV 1500 FT) 290.5(331-045 ABV 2500 FT) 363.2(250-330 1500 FT & BLO) 363.2(331-045 2500 FT & BLO)
CLEARANCE DELIVERY: 119.4 128.65 323.1

EMERG: 121.5 243.0
ANG OPS: 311.0
USB ANG OPS: 4897.5

CLASS C: 118.6(250-330 ABV 1500 FT) 119.1(250-330 1500 FT & BLO) 119.1(331-045 2500 FT & BLO) 123.8(206-249 ALL ALTS) 126.4(046-205 ALL ALTS) 257.9(046-205 ALL ALTS) 257.9(206-249 ALL ALTS) 290.5(331-045 ABV 2500 FT) 363.2(250-330 1500 FT & BLO) 363.2(331-045 2500 FT & BLO)
CLASS C IC: 118.6(331-045 ABV 2500 FT) 290.5(250-330 ABV 1500 FT)

RDR: 259.1X 271.3X 320.1X 324.3X 327.1X

ANG OPNS: 140.15
UNICOM: 122.950
ASOS at LHD (0.8 NE): 907-245-1618
ATIS at LHD (0.8 NE): 125.6
ASOS at MRI (5.0 NE): 907-272-0542
Also, of particular note are the plate procedures at the bottom of the linked page ;)

Also, the airspace and airport/s layout SkyVector: Flight Planning / Aeronautical Charts (http://skyvector.com/?ll=61.174361111,-149.996361111&chart=100&zoom=3)

How many Frequencies? How many ATC positions? etc etc … Anchorage ain’t a lot like YWLM for a whole host of reasons. :rolleyes:

Trying to sell Apples by calling them Walnuts won’t work.

As far as the thread topic goes - Any update on your US friend using less than three miles between IFR and VFR in Class C?
But minds are closed here, they fear change!
No, change is constant, we fear stupidity! We have seen loads of that in Airspace Change Management the last 20 years

[Jack Ranga]

As far as the thread topic goes - Any update on your US friend using less than three miles between IFR and VFR in Class C?

Maybe off his own bat he's decided to implement Class E without telling anyone he's doing it? NOT

Bing/T28D/Joker10 still waiting on the TCAD price? Thanks.

[Flying Binghi]

Hmm, seems somebody is looking for a distracter..:hmm:

Bing/T28D/Joker10 still waiting on the TCAD price? Thanks.

Jack Ranga, what have T28D and Joker10 got to do with Ryan TCAD prices..:confused:

Methinks if Jack Ranga actualy owned an aircraft knowing where to look for a price would be easy..:)





.

[Flying Binghi]

The data breakdown on page 31 of the link is instructive. Note the collision statistics - Midair - 20, 12 of which were fatal, one of which involved a Part 135 aircraft.

Do you think ADS-B and GNSS in Alaska was an FAA priority by happenstance?

So, The Chaser, just to get it right, is that 20 separate midair incidents, or, 20 separate aircraft involved in mid-airs ?
It is interesting that from what i hear (never been there me-self) that a big problem in Alaska is the way much VFR air traffic gets funneled and concentrated through valleys - the sorta thing we don't have as much of here in Oz.

There are claims about that ADS-B reduced the Alaskan accident rate. Yet, when yer look into it there is often comments of failure to avoid cumulogranitis as the accident cause. Seems we need to have a closer look-see at The Chaser claims..:hmm:




.

[The Chaser]

Binga

Page 31 of the FAA Alaska analysis (link in post #123 above)

Mid-Air Collisions (just Mid-Air collisions)

- Total Accidents = 20
- Total Fatal Accidents = 12

CFIT for example is separately listed as:-

IN FLIGHT COLLISION WITH TERRAIN/WATER

- Total accidents = 156
- Total Fatal accidents = 43

... all other accident categories are listed separately also!

They are not claims made by me (unlike the unsubstanciated waffle of others), they are facts published by the FAA USA ;)

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

For those who MAY be interested.....

The Ryan TCAD 9900BX is avbl ex USA for USD$20,200 with the display....and for $19,200 without.

The link refers.....
Ryan TCAD 9900BX | Flying Magazine | The World?s Most Widely Read Aviation Magazine (http://www.flyingmag.com/gear/avionics/ryan-traffic-system-gets-certification)

Not your 'everyday - impulse buy' purchase I would have thought....:eek::eek:

Cheers:ok:

[C-change]

Dick Smith said;
Boofhead, thanks but they just don't get it.

I am willingly to cover the cost of a Willy controller traveling to Anchorage to see how they operate ATC with IFR and VFR traffic.

Modern procedures are the way to do it.

But minds are closed here, they fear change!


Nice holiday for the lucky controller but once again (as you know) your offer will be wasted, as its the CDF, the CEO AsA and CASA, plus the airlines and many others out there who make the rules that need to be convinced of your suggestions. Yet you continue to focus on the coalface controllers at Willy believing they can implement your change !
Why do you think the workers in Defence get to change the rules by themselves ? :ugh:

I don't expect you to answer the above question, as you tend to steer around them at your leisure, or reply with the "closed minds" statement. I also noticed that you didn't comment on my last post when I made mention of how Defence does mix IFR/VFR ops every day, or an earlier post by SCRAN on Pearce procedures. Funny that !

[Jack Ranga]

Methinks if Jack Ranga actualy owned an aircraft knowing where to look for a price would be easy..http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif


Ooooh but Bingha boy, Jack Ranga does own an aircraft ;) Jack Ranga has actually owned two, even got all the receipts! If you asked me how much I paid for the aircraft or any component I could tell you :ok:

Has binga actually own an aircraft? mmmmmmmmm, can't find the receipts eh?

You could even come down to the hangar and have a look? Plenty of pruners have so far? Bit far from Perth I 'spose? ;)

[Jabawocky]

It is interesting that from what i hear (never been there me-self) that a big problem in Alaska is the way much VFR air traffic gets funneled and concentrated through valleys - the sorta thing we don't have as much of here in Oz.

What?....like into Bankstown, or the VFR lanes around Willytown?

Nope never happens here :ooh:

[Dick Smith]

Here’s the exact information

First, from the FAA Pilot Controller Glossary:

TARGET RESOLUTION- A process to ensure that correlated radar targets do not touch. Target resolution shall be applied as follows:
 a.Between the edges of two primary targets or the edges of the ASR-9 primary target symbol.
 b.Between the end of the beacon control slash and the edge of a primary target.
 c.Between the ends of two beacon control slashes.
Note 1: MANDATORY TRAFFIC ADVISORIES AND SAFETY ALERTS SHALL BE ISSUED WHEN THIS PROCEDURE IS USED.
Note 2: This procedure shall not be provided utilizing mosaic radar systems.

and second, from FAA Order JO 7110.65T

From FAA Order JO 7110.65T
Section 8. Class C Service- Terminal
7-8-1. APPLICATION
Apply Class C service procedures within the designated Class C airspace and the associated outer area. Class C services are designed to keep ATC informed of all aircraft within Class C airspace, not to exclude operations. Two-way radio communications and operational transponder are normally required for operations within Class C airspace, but operations without radio communications or transponder can be conducted by LOA, facility directive, or special arrangement with Class C airspace controlling facility.
REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 7-2-1, Visual Separation.
14 CFR Section 91.215, ATC Transponder and Altitude Reporting Equipment and Use.
7-8-2. CLASS C SERVICES
a. Class C services include the following:
1. Sequencing of all aircraft to the primary airport.
2. Standard IFR services to IFR aircraft.
3. Separation, traffic advisories, and safety alerts between IFR and VFR aircraft.
4. Mandatory traffic advisories and safety alerts between VFR aircraft.
b. Provide Class C services to all aircraft operating within Class C airspace.
c. Provide Class C services to all participating aircraft in the outer area.
d. Aircraft should not normally be held. However, if holding is necessary, inform the pilot of the expected length of delay.
e. When a radar outage occurs, advise aircraft that Class C services are not available and, if appropriate, when to contact the tower.
REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 7-2-1, Visual Separation.
7-8-3. SEPARATION
Separate VFR aircraft from IFR aircraft by any one of the following:
a. Visual separation as specified in para 7-2-1, Visual Separation, para 7-4-2, Vectors for Visual Approach, and para 7-6-7, Sequencing.
NOTE-
Issue wake turbulence cautionary advisories in accordance with para 2-1-20, Wake Turbulence Cautionary Advisories.
b. 500 feet vertical separation;
c. Target resolution when using broadband radar systems. The application of target resolution at locations not using broadband radar will be individually approved by the Director of Terminal Safety and Operations Support.
NOTE-
Apply the provisions of para 5-5-4, Minima, when wake turbulence separation is required.
REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 7-2-1, Visual Separation.

I don’t think anything could be much clearer than this, but no-one actually gives a good reason why we don’t at least consider this here.

Yes, it’s up to one of the senior guys in the military to make a decision, but if some of the air traffic controllers were interested they could at least put the suggestion forward to the hierarchy. You never know what might then happen.

And one thing which is most important is that this needless holding puts pilots off flying via the coastal lane. I know pilots who intentionally go via the inland lane with all of its complexities so they are not going to be held over the ocean. This means safety is reduced.

[Dick Smith]

And wait for it…

Target Resolution is actually approved in Class B – yes, the airspace that Qantas flies in every day at places like Los Angeles and New York!

Yes, I know – target resolution is for aircraft weighing 19,000 pounds or less, but notice the
1 1/2 miles radar separation standard as well!!!

Section 9. Class B Service Area- Terminal
7-9-1. APPLICATION

Apply Class B services and procedures within the designated Class B airspace.

a. No person may operate an aircraft within Class B airspace unless:

1. The aircraft has an operable two-way radio capable of communications with ATC on appropriate frequencies for that Class B airspace.

2. The aircraft is equipped with the applicable operating transponder and automatic altitude reporting equipment specified in para (a) of 14 CFR Section 91.215, except as provided in para (d) of that section.

7-9-2. VFR AIRCRAFT IN CLASS B AIRSPACE

a. VFR aircraft must obtain an ATC clearance to operate in Class B airspace.

REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 2-1-18, Operational Requests.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 2-4-22, Airspace Classes.

PHRASEOLOGY-
CLEARED THROUGH/TO ENTER/OUT OF BRAVO AIRSPACE,

and as appropriate,

VIA (route). MAINTAIN (altitude) WHILE IN BRAVO AIRSPACE.

or

CLEARED AS REQUESTED.

(Additional instructions, as necessary.)

REMAIN OUTSIDE BRAVO AIRSPACE. (When necessary, reason and/or additional instructions.)

NOTE-
1. Assignment of radar headings, routes, or altitudes is based on the provision that a pilot operating in accordance with VFR is expected to advise ATC if compliance will cause violation of any part of the CFR.

2. Separation and sequencing for VFR aircraft is dependent upon radar. Efforts should be made to segregate VFR traffic from IFR traffic flows when a radar outage occurs.

b. Approve/deny requests from VFR aircraft to operate in Class B airspace based on workload, operational limitations and traffic conditions.

c. Inform the pilot when to expect further clearance when VFR aircraft are held either inside or outside Class B airspace.

d. Inform VFR aircraft when leaving Class B airspace.

PHRASEOLOGY-
LEAVING (name) BRAVO AIRSPACE,

and as appropriate,

RESUME OWN NAVIGATION, REMAIN THIS FREQUENCY FOR TRAFFIC ADVISORIES, RADAR SERVICE TERMINATED, SQUAWK ONE TWO ZERO ZERO.

7-9-3. METHODS

a. To the extent practical, clear large turbine engine-powered airplanes to/from the primary airport using altitudes and routes that avoid VFR corridors and airspace below the Class B airspace floor where VFR aircraft are operating.

NOTE-
Pilots operating in accordance with VFR are expected to advise ATC if compliance with assigned altitudes, headings, or routes will cause violation of any part of the CFR.

b. Vector aircraft to remain in Class B airspace after entry. Inform the aircraft when leaving and reentering Class B airspace if it becomes necessary to extend the flight path outside Class B airspace for spacing.

NOTE-
14 CFR Section 91.131 states that “Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each person operating a large turbine engine-powered airplane to or from a primary airport for which a Class B airspace area is designated must operate at or above the designated floors of the Class B airspace area while within the lateral limits of that area.” Such authorization should be the exception rather than the rule.

REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 5-1-10, Deviation Advisories.

c. Aircraft departing controlled airports within Class B airspace will be provided the same services as those aircraft departing the primary airport.

REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 2-1-18, Operational Requests.

7-9-4. SEPARATION

a. Standard IFR services to IFR aircraft.

b. VFR aircraft must be separated from VFR/IFR aircraft that weigh more than 19,000 pounds and turbojets by no less than:

1. 1 1/2 miles separation, or

2. 500 feet vertical separation, or

NOTE-
Apply the provisions of para 5-5-4, Minima, when wake turbulence separation is required.

3. Visual separation, as specified in para 7-2-1, Visual Separation, para 7-4-2, Vectors for Visual Approach, and para 7-6-7, Sequencing.

NOTE-
Issue wake turbulence cautionary advisories in accordance with para 2-1-20, Wake Turbulence Cautionary Advisories.

c. For the application of Class Bravo airspace separation requirements, the V-22 Osprey must be treated as a fixed-wing aircraft. It is an SRS Category II aircraft but weighs more than 19,000 pounds. The V-22 Osprey must be separated from VFR/IFR aircraft by minimum identified in subparagraph b above.

d. VFR aircraft must be separated from all VFR/IFR aircraft which weigh 19,000 pounds or less by a minimum of:

1. Target resolution, or

2. 500 feet vertical separation, or

NOTE-
1. Apply the provisions of para 5-5-4, Minima, when wake turbulence separation is required.

2. Aircraft weighing 19,000 pounds or less include all aircraft in SRS Categories I and II plus G73, STAR, S601, BE30, SW3, B190 and C212.

3. Visual separation, as specified in para 7-2-1, Visual Separation, para 7-4-2, Vectors for Visual Approach, and para 7-6-7, Sequencing.

NOTE-
Issue wake turbulence cautionary advisories in accordance with para 2-1-20, Wake Turbulence Cautionary Advisories.

REFERENCE-
P/CG Term- Lateral Separation.
P/CG Term- Radar Separation.
P/CG Term- Target Resolution.
P/CG Term- Visual Separation.

[le Pingouin]

TARGET RESOLUTION- A process to ensure that correlated radar targets do not touch. Target resolution shall be applied as follows:
 a.Between the edges of two primary targets or the edges of the ASR-9 primary target symbol.
 b.Between the end of the beacon control slash and the edge of a primary target.
 c.Between the ends of two beacon control slashes.
Note 1: MANDATORY TRAFFIC ADVISORIES AND SAFETY ALERTS SHALL BE ISSUED WHEN THIS PROCEDURE IS USED.
Note 2: This procedure shall not be provided utilizing mosaic radar systems.Guess what Dick? None of that is relevant to Australia. They're for analogue radar systems where the return is a smeared out blob. We use digital systems so get a synthetic target. Not to mention that we use a mosaic radar system.

[Jack Ranga]

Bugger......... ;)

[C-change]

Nice work Dick,
Thanks for providing the info, now we know what you actually want. You want us to provide a Class D separation service in control zones and/or a reduction in the 3Nm separation standard to 1.5nm. Thats fine. Here are some questions for you;

What have you done to convince industry (Not just Williamtown) that your proposal is safe and efficient, besides using pprune ?

How do you intend to solve the problem of everyone using mosiac radar displays in OZ ?

How do you intend to implement your proposed changes ? ie Nation wide or just Military Control Zones ?

[peuce]

Dick,

Thank's for providing the information. That's a great first step. At least we know what is proposed.

However, as others have stated, there are some hardware issues to solve first.

Also, I would suggest that it's more appropriate that you, or other supporting Industry Representatives put the proposal to CASA ... as you are the ones who are the proponent of the change.

I don't think it's appropriate that you say to X that you reckon B is a great idea ... now I want you, X, to go and sell B to C.

[The Chaser]

:ugh: ... Fair Dinkum :ugh: ..... WRONG :hmm:

Nice try though Disk Smith,

Before we do this. For all reading who are interested, drop down to the start of the next post, click on the link. Have a read ….. a close read.

Righto,

First, Target Resolution is as I quoted earlier (and as you have requoted). It is as the rule suggests to ensure different symbol types on mostly older radar systems do not overlap becuase they then blurr, and no distance can be gleaned between two aircraft. Aircraft (as they look on these older systems) will be a minimum 3NM apart, sometime even greater distances apart (dependant on target distance from the radar head, and screen scale) when:-
a.Between the edges of two primary targets or the edges of the ASR-9 primary target symbol.
b.Between the end of the beacon control slash and the edge of a primary target.
c.Between the ends of two beacon control slashes.
In other words, the centre (aircraft position) of the Blob’s/symbols might be 6NM apart, but the controller cannot let the edges of the Blob’s/symbols touch. Target Resolution It does not to enable less than 3NM separation[/B]!!!

Let’s put the rest of your quotes from the Visual Chapter into plain English shall we:-
7-8-2. CLASS C SERVICES
a. Class C services include the following:
1. Sequencing of all aircraft to the primary airport.
2. Standard IFR services to IFR aircraft.
3. Separation
= Between IFR and IFR and VFR
, traffic advisories and safety alerts between IFR and VFR aircraft.
As per Note 1 below:-
TARGET RESOLUTION – A process to ensure that correlated radar targets do not touch. Target resolution shall be applied as follows:
 a.Between the edges of two primary targets or the edges of the ASR-9 primary target symbol.
 b.Between the end of the beacon control slash and the edge of a primary target.
 c.Between the ends of two beacon control slashes.
Note 1: [U]MANDATORY TRAFFIC ADVISORIES AND SAFETY ALERTS SHALL BE ISSUED WHEN THIS PROCEDURE IS USED.
Now lets look at the definitions and use of Traffic Advisory and Safety Alert
Traffic Advisories
2-1-21. TRAFFIC ADVISORIES
Unless an aircraft is operating within Class A airspace or omission is requested by the pilot, issue traffic advisories to all aircraft (IFR or VFR) on your frequency when, in your judgment, [/B]their proximity may diminish to less than the applicable separation minima[/B]. Where no separation minima applies, such as for VFR aircraft [U]outside of Class B/Class C airspace, or a TRSA, issue traffic advisories[/B] to those aircraft on your frequency when in your judgment their proximity warrants it.
Safety Alerts
2-1-6. SAFETY ALERT
Issue a safety alert to an aircraft if you are aware the aircraft is in a position/altitude which, in your judgment, places it in unsafe proximity to terrain, obstructions, or other aircraft. Once the pilot informs you action is being taken to resolve the situation, you may discontinue the issuance of further alerts. Do not assume that because someone else has responsibility
for the aircraft that the unsafe situation has been observed and the safety alert issued; inform the appropriate controller.

NOTE-
1. The issuance of a safety alert is a first priority (see para_2-1-2, Duty Priority) once the controller observes and recognizes a situation of unsafe aircraft proximity to terrain, obstacles, or other aircraft. Conditions, such as workload, traffic volume, the quality/limitations of the radar system, and the available lead time to react are factors in determining whether it is reasonable for the controller to observe and recognize such situations. While a controller cannot see immediately the development of
every situation where a safety alert must be issued, the controller must remain vigilant for such situations and issue a safety alert when the situation is recognized.
2. Recognition of situations of unsafe proximity may result from MSAW/E-MSAW/LAAS, automatic altitude readouts, Conflict/Mode C Intruder Alert, observations on a PAR scope, or pilot reports.
3. Once the alert is issued, it is solely the pilot's prerogative to determine what course of action, if any, will be taken.
In other words, a safety alert is a non-normal last line alert to pilots in an unsafe situation. It is NOT a normal procedure!
Back to the rest of 7.8.2
4. Mandatory traffic advisories and safety alerts between VFR aircraft.
Because VFR and VFR need NOT be separated in class C so the same traffic advisories and safety alerts apply when there is NOT 3NM separation
b. Provide Class C services to all aircraft operating within Class C airspace.
c. Provide Class C services to all participating aircraft in the outer area.
d. Aircraft should not normally be held. However, if holding is necessary, inform the pilot of the expected length of delay. and, if appropriate, when to contact the tower.
Lets quote the whole Visual Section of Class B shall we
7-9-4. SEPARATION
a. Standard IFR services to IFR aircraft.
b. VFR aircraft shall be separated from VFR/IFR aircraft that weigh more than 19,000 pounds and turbojets by no less than:
1. 1 1/2 miles separation, or
2. 500 feet vertical separation, or
NOTE[B]Apply the provisions of para [B]5-5-4, Minima, when wake turbulence separation is required.
3. Visual separation, as specified in para 7-2-1, Visual Separation, para 7-4-2, Vectors for Visual Approach, and para 7-6-7, Sequencing. NOTE Issue wake turbulence cautionary advisories in accordance with para 2-1-20, Wake Turbulence Cautionary Advisories.
c. VFR aircraft shall be separated from all VFR/IFR aircraft which weigh 19,000 pounds or less by a minimum of:
1. Target resolution, or
2. 500 feet vertical separation, or
NOTE-
1. Apply the provisions of para 5-5-4, Minima, when wake turbulence separation is required.
2. Aircraft weighing 19,000 pounds or less include all aircraft in SRS Categories I and II plus G73, STAR, S601, BE30, SW3, B190 and C212.
3. Visual separation, as specified in para 7-2-1, Visual Separation, para 7-4-2, Vectors for Visual Approach, and para 7-6-7, Sequencing.
NOTE Issue wake turbulence cautionary advisories in accordance with para 2-1-20, Wake Turbulence Cautionary Advisories.
Do you know where 1 ½ miles is used??? :hmm:

[The Chaser]

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc/atc0505.html
5-5-10. ADJACENT AIRSPACE
a. If coordination between the controllers concerned has not been effected, separate radar-controlled aircraft from the boundary of adjacent airspace in which radar separation is also being used by the following minima:
REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 2-1-14, Coordinate Use of Airspace.
1. When less than 40 miles from the antenna- 1 1/2 miles.
The totality of the US regulations for Class C services, although written differently in different manuals, amounts to exactly the same Class C radar services we have here in Australia, no more, no less.

Australian equivalent

Target Resolution in our books is written thus:-
- No overlap Do not allow the edges of the position indications to touch or overlap, under any circumstances, unless vertical separation is applied between aircraft, irrespective of the type of position indication displayed and the separation minimum applied.
This is the Terminal Area Radar Minima (almost exactly the same as the US)
- 3 NM radar separation You may reduce the horizontal radar separation minimum to 3 NM, provided that the aircraft are in communication with and under the control of either a TCU or the associated Control Tower providing Class C services, and are:
a. within 100 NM of an MSSR sensor; or
b. within 30 NM of a radar sensor using:
1. military high definition (scan rate of 12 RPM or greater)
Terminal Approach Radar (TAR); or
2. primary data from a civil high definition TAR (scan rate of 16.4 RPM).
And your 1 1/2 mile standard here in Australia
- Standard - half applicable minimum
Use the standard of half the applicable ATS surveillance system horizontal separation minimum under the following conditions:
a. that the adjacent sector, in controlled airspace, has the same ATS surveillance system processing and display system; or
b. that the restricted area flying activity is subject to the ADF:
1. applying half the applicable ATS surveillance system
horizontal separation minimum between aircraft in the restricted area and the restricted area boundary; or
2. ensuring that an appropriate navigation tolerance is applied to aircraft contained within the restricted area; or
c. that the restricted area non-flying activity is subject to the appropriate tolerances being applied by the restricted area user to ensure containment of the activity within the restricted area.
Sorry to burst the enthusiasm bubble and all that!

Provide one, just one 'verified' example of Class C services in the USA where within that airspace, IFR and VFR traffic are NOT separated by at least the Minima in 5-5-4. ;)

[Blockla]

In other words, the centre (aircraft position) of the Blob’s/symbols might be 6NM apart, but the controller cannot let the edges of the Blob’s/symbols touch. Target Resolution It does not to enable less than 3NM separation!!!Going back near 20 years, when I first got a rating, the Sydney Southern Mosaic radar used to cause us significant over separation issues, particularly close to Parks. The aircraft could come down from BN towards Melbourne 20+ miles apart and we 'could lose' radar separation as the paints could grow so much on the edge of radar coverage; we had to apply separation between the SSR symbols using the ILDS (the first labels applied to the bright displays), but the primary paints were still not allowed to touch (target resolution). Sometimes we would run a DME standard as that was more efficient... We also had issues with crossing traffic near Parks where we needed the best part of twenty miles between aircraft to ensure no radar returns touching...

Target resolution is currently used in 'definite passing' by radar in Oz... I can't imagine a situation where controllers let aircraft nearly hit before intervening because all they have to do is not let the blips touch... I too would like a US controller on here stating how they apply 'target resolution' rather than an extrapolation on how it works (ie for crossing traffic, opposite direction, same direction, lateral, longitudinal etc...) Remember "Merging Target Procedure" how exactly is that one used here or in the US? Give traffic when you have a minimum standard... hmmm why have a minimum standard?

Digital/synthetic radar mosaics MTR systems are used by all modern ATC technology, I'm not sure you'll ever get 'green/grey between' as a standard for the purposes of separation; lets not mention the concept of 'separation assurance'...

[cbradio]

Those pesky technicalities ....

[scran]

Well done Lads - correct use of factual information...:ok: :ok: :D




unlike others who start threads like this...........:eek: :ugh: :yuk:

[Jack Ranga]

Dick, selective use of information, quoting information you don't understand, not understanding or explaining the true intent of procedures.

I believe all of the people above are or have been ATC's, they understand the equipment and limitations as such before using it.

You should use your obvious power for good.

[Capn Bloggs]

Jack, I'll go one step further:

Dick,you should hang your head in shame. With your alleged standing in the community, you of all people should get your facts straight first before getting on here, ranting and raving about how it's done "over there" and accusing us of being "pathetic" because we don't do it that way.

Chaser and the ATCers, thanks for your counter arguments. You have exposed the Free in GE rabble for what it really is: "I want to fly where I like, when I like, with no regard or concern for others".

[OZBUSDRIVER]

not forgetting the most important issue....

DON'T EXPECT ME TO PAY FOR ANYTHING!

Good posts from ATC guys...reality does bite you, Mr Smith.

Now if he wants to think laterally and apply ADS-B accuracy to this issue....5nm separation (or even 3nm!) regardless of position in relation to a radar head would be a cake walk.....but he doesn't want that for the plebs. Besides, how big is that "target" at 400nm resoltion in en-route airspace?

Back to the issue of WLM...one wonders how many times Mr Smith has been through without an issue...but you can't make an issue about that, could you?

[Jabawocky]

..........GSM :)

[Dick Smith]

Never have I seen such a lot of foolish and closed minds as shown in the posts above.

First of all, we don’t use mosaic radar. We use multi-radar tracking.

However, I understand the Williamtown approach does not use mosaic or multi-radar tracking for aircraft that are flying close to the airfield. That’s why the thread is about Williamtown.

Over the years I have spoken to controllers who have said that if they did have the US procedures at a place like Williamtown, that it would facilitate traffic movement and remove the need for holding single engine aircraft over water when VMC exists.

I find it fascinating how all of you anonymous cowards leap in to justify what you have been doing since you were trained. It’s almost as if your air traffic control is some type of religious faith that comes from a “bible” which shall never be doubted or queried.

In fact, air traffic control procedures and separation standards have evolved over nearly one hundred years of science. If you want to have a system of procedures and separation standards based on faith, go ahead and do that. I happen to have a lateral mind and would like to copy the best from anywhere, especially if its safety is proven.

I will say once again – it was the type of people who are posting above who stopped us moving from a system in primary control zones where VFR was separated from VFR as if they were IFR. Imagine that! Yes, and it was held on to for many years but was eventually changed and what they did in the United States was copied. Since then I have never heard of one person claiming we should go back to our old, archaic system.

What I have said is absolutely 100% correct, that is why I put my name to my posts. The only reason posters don’t put their names to their posts on such basic issues as airspace procedures is they don’t really believe in what they are saying and they don’t want to have a system where something could be attributed to them and then it is found that it is a classic resistance to change and concrete mindedness.

For all those who are reading these posts who don’t have a closed mind, I can assure you that one day we will follow modern international procedures. We will give our controllers procedures and responsibilities that will allow them to use their professionalism and experience to the greatest extent.

After all, if it can happen in competitor countries like the United States and Canada, it can sure happen here.

I will say once again, if we use the Class C American and Canadian procedures at Williamtown with the existing radar, if we allocate the tower airspace as they do in the United States and Canada and use their procedures, we will facilitate traffic and monetary waste will be reduced and safety will be improved.

Keep your minds closed as long as you want to – it doesn’t affect me. But it’s probably your children and grandchildren who won’t be getting jobs in our industry in the future because of your foolishness.

[scran]

no comment..................................




No, changed my mind (perhasp it isn't that closed........:eek:)




Your offer of sending a Military Controller (which you have used before from memory) is utter nonsence, and as you were the Chairman of CASA - you know that to be true!!!!!!!!!



I wasn't in the Tower at Williamtown that fateful day - so I don't know the actual weather, or traffic situation. HOWEVER, I suspect that I, as one of those old and bold ATC guys from the late 70's to the early 90's (my active controlling days) I can think of how I might have allowed even you to transit in the rough situation you outlined.

I'm not against change (hell - I moved out of active ATC to several staff positions, and since then have left the military and now work in a field that has NOTHING to do with aviation - and therefore have opened my mind....:cool:)...............


What I am against is you having a hissy fit because you got held and trying to change the system by shaming the controller concerned (thats basically what your thread does), then sprouting that tripe about Senior Defence personnel, trotting out the Sea Sprite issue (again!) when you SHOULD know that the rules and procedures that are employed by ATC (both civil and military) are set in co-ordination and agreement with the regulator - that being CASA (that fine organisation that you once headed).


I loved my time as an ATC, and whenever possible provided what the pilot wanted. Hell, I even probably broke the rules a few times!!!!




Did you ever hear about the fly-in to Willy in late '86 to welcome the Hornet into Australian service? Did you ever hear how that there was so much light aircraft traffic trying to get into Willy that the tower controller on the day didn't use callsigns, providing landing clearances to aircraft based on their type and colour, used non-standard runway separation standards and non approved patter/RT Phraseology, all in an attempt to "get the job done"? Did you Dick? Ask around about it.

The Senior ATC Officer at Williamtown was in the tower that morning, and instead of relieving the controller of his ratings, allowed the situation to happen, as it was the only way the amount of traffic around was going to be processed. In fact, he nominated that controller for a commendation from the very military leadership who should have been aghast!!! :eek:





It still hangs on my wall in my study.........................

[C-change]

I was wondering how long it would take for the "closed minds" response.

[le Pingouin]

Dick, you post the requirements for using target resolution & I tell you the technical reasons why it can't be used. Maybe you don't but we have to play by rules.

So, is ADATS analogue or digital Dick?

And MTR is a mosaic radar system.

You're the one with faith Dick. You won't let facts disturb your belief system.

[Dick Smith]

WILLY Does not use mosiac so target res can be used.

As Chairman of CAA I arranged for our Controllers to go to the USA and work in the sytem there.

Many came back with suggestions on how improvements could be made here but others stopped any change.

[le Pingouin]

Try again Dick. Is ADATS analogue or digital?

[Dick Smith]

Who cares _ it's got nothing to do with the issue.

[Dick Smith]

Scran

I will say it once again as I have many times on this thread. I am not blaming the workface military controllers – I find them as good as any in the world.

What I am blaming are the procedures they have to operate to.

You may be surprised that the operations at Oshkosh fully comply with the FAA regulations for that airspace.

Whilst I appreciate your comments in relation to Williamtown in ’86 when the Hornet came to Australia, wouldn’t it be great if the controllers could have used approved procedures and their own judgement and not be breaking the rules? That is what I would prefer.

I’m not trying to change the system by shaming the controller. Certainly I am giving a strong message to the military that the reason they are having problems in attracting recruits is that they don’t move forward with the times and ask the best advice.

On another tack, why don’t we have nuclear submarines? To me, puttering around in a diesel submarine meaning you have to come up for air every few days and then be radar-identified seems far worse than being in a nuclear machine.

Yes, you will tell me it’s for political reasons that we don’t go nuclear – and that’s pretty right – except that if there was good leadership in the military hierarchy they would be able to communicate to the public the necessity that if we are going to have a submarine fleet at all, at least some of our subs should be nuclear.

I understand from an expert submariner that we can buy one of the proven British models for not a huge difference in the planned price of the new diesel subs.

Your post shows me that there is some good initiative – or there was in ’86 in the military. What has happened today, then? Why doesn’t a military person come on to this thread and say, Dick, we are going to look at everything overseas. We have open minds. If there is a way of doing things better with high levels of safety, we will definitely be doing that.

By the way, Airservices did look at target resolution, but because their radars are multi-radar tracking they said this was ruled out.

Of course, if the military in some locations have displays which are not multi-radar tracked, there is a chance of using target resolution.

[le Pingouin]

It has everything to do with the issue. The requirements you posted for target resolution are only applicable to analogue radar systems. As I said we have to play by the rules & the rules say analogue only :ugh:

[Jabawocky]

Did you ever hear about the fly-in to Willy in late '86 to welcome the Hornet into Australian service? Did you ever hear how that there was so much light aircraft traffic trying to get into Willy that the tower controller on the day didn't use callsigns, providing landing clearances to aircraft based on their type and colour, used non-standard runway separation standards and non approved patter/RT Phraseology, all in an attempt to "get the job done"? Did you Dick? Ask around about it.

The Senior ATC Officer at Williamtown was in the tower that morning, and instead of relieving the controller of his ratings, allowed the situation to happen, as it was the only way the amount of traffic around was going to be processed. In fact, he nominated that controller for a commendation from the very military leadership who should have been aghast!!! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gifWell done :D...........and that is how it is done at Oshkosh each year.....mind you they are well practised at it of course. But you can be sure that is not what happens down the road at Maddison or Chicargo :suspect:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Mr Smith, how many times have transitedWLM since the meeting between the RAAF and that GA advocacy group.....and how many times have you been held since then?

[NTZ]

However, I understand the Williamtown approach does not use mosaic or multi-radar tracking for aircraft that are flying close to the airfield.

Of course they do - the RADAR cannot see above itself, so it uses best data available (from three other sites when I was there last), quite often to get rid of the "cone of silence". I do agree the low level coverage from the other feeds is poor (best I ever saw was down to 2000 feet during RADAR maintenance). There are conditions when the controller will intervene, but in most cases, the system decides which data is best given the conditions on the day.

Who cares _ it's got nothing to do with the issue.

le Pingouin is absolutely correct. It is how the data is displayed that is important; i.e. whether you're using a synthetic (computer interpreted and processed - digital) display or raw (pure RADAR return data - analogue) display of the RADAR signal. Guess which one (yes one) military ATC currently uses.

We will give our controllers procedures and responsibilities that will allow them to use their professionalism and experience to the greatest extent.

This statement actually saddens me.

It is clear that your knowledge of ATC is lacking and predominantly based on what you hear from the cabin of your aircraft. That is akin to me judging your ability to fly an aircraft based solely on the time that you have been transiting the airspace that I control. Am I right to assume that you are condoning this practice of 'limited understanding' along with your 'name calling', circular arguments and lack of evidence as perfectly valid reasons for arguing?

anonymous cowards

The only reason posters don’t put their names to their posts on such basic issues as airspace procedures is they don’t really believe in what they are saying and they don’t want to have a system where something could be attributed to them

You do know this is an anonymous forum right? It says so at the bottom of the page.

[C-change]

Ah, now this thread is more like it. For a moment I thought Dick was making sense but he has been shot down with facts and he doesn't like it.

What does he do ?

He slips into closed minds mode;
tells radar controllers they don't know anything about the systems they use;
continues to insist the Military should do things differently based on what he has reportedly heard;
back pedals on earlier comments stating "Defence personnel deserve low morale";and
(this one takes the cake), some how, he diverted the thread onto NUCLEAR SUBMARINES !

Perhaps the Navy can park one off Stockton Beach and shoot down those annoying aircraft that cause your delays. :ok:

[CaptainMidnight]

you anonymous cowardsDear oh dear. Time for the sin bin?

[The Chaser]

:ugh: you talk about others with a closed mind Disk
Who cares _ it's got nothing to do with the issue

Lets for argument sake, go back in time to when YWLM had raw (analogue) radar prior to the ADATS installation.

If your aircraft was correlated and displayed on the screen, it would have a blob containing the primary marker (blob) and the beacon slash (orientated perpendicular to an imaginary line drawn towards the radar head). Another aircraft also in the area would be displayed the same way.

If the relative width of the beacon slash was ... oh I don't know, say and average of 3nm close in to the field .... how far between aircraft positions (centre to centre) would Target Resolution bring them?

1.5 + 1.5 = 3nm .... Ah ha :rolleyes:

Jump forward to modern day, Digital with small circular symbols on the controllers screen which are the same size (visually) no matter which screen scale is selected.

Also, let's asume the next election has been and gone .. beforehand, you had taken out paper adverts, got your face on telly and radio thanks to the blinky eyed uninformed media, and, dills like MRabbott and The Albo had said to you:-

"yes Disk, we will fix it for you (gobble gobble)"

And voila 'Target Resolution' is all systems go! :hmm:

The normal screen range will have edge to edge a lot closer than the separation minima. If the controller zooms in to say 15nm range ... if target resolution was used with these systems, at a small scale setting, the aircraft could be as close as 500m apart.

Do you see the relevance???

As le Pingouin and others (including AsA and the FAA) have pointed out, this is why Target Resolution cannot and is not used with digital systems.

[YPJT]

So we have gone from Dick not getting his VFR clearance being linked to the fact that the RAN does not have nuclear submarines. You really have lost the plot.

[Dizzy Llama]

the aircraft could be as close as 500m apart.

I don't want to speak for Dick, but I think you'll find that is precisely what he is looking for!

If I'm down the back in seat 44A, 3 miles from a Cirrus, Lancair or (gulp) VLJ is close enough thanks!

[The Chaser]

Dizzy :ok: .. yep, and I reckon he (and/or his erstwhile retired side kick) has known all along that Target Res' was never used for this purpose in Class C or B :suspect:
If I'm down the back in seat 44A, 3 miles from a Cirrus, Lancair or (gulp) VLJ is close enough thanks!
Yup!, and I don't reckon you'd be Robinson Crusoe ;)

[Jack Ranga]

I am not blaming the workface military controllers

Oh yes you are, you called them (and us) cowards?.............

The ONLY reason you get to post here in your own name Dick, is that you are independently wealthy and will not get the sack or reprimanded for participating.

[Chronic Snoozer]

On another tack, why don’t we have nuclear submarines? To me, puttering around in a diesel submarine meaning you have to come up for air every few days and then be radar-identified seems far worse than being in a nuclear machine.


But how else would you separate the submarines if you can't radar identify them? :oh:

I understand from an expert submariner that we can buy one of the proven British models for not a huge difference in the planned price of the new diesel subs.

About a billion dollars difference sound about right? Hey, I read on ebay the Eiffel Tower is for sale too.....:ouch:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey Dick,

Reur
"Certainly I am giving a strong message to the military"......

ON THESE FORUMS...????

Pull the other one.....
And.....tks for the 'redundo'.........

Cheeers:ok:

[rotorblades]

It’s almost as if your air traffic control is some type of religious faith that comes from a “bible” which shall never be doubted or queried.

Its several bibles called MATS, NAPM, LOAs & LIs. If we break the 'rules' set down in them and something happens we would not have a leg to stand on, duty of care and all that.
I, for one, dont want to get sent to prison for manslaughter just so Dick in his VFR A109 doesnt get held up for a short period.

Instead of bagging the controllers Dick, who have absolutely no say in the rules & regulations you should be concerned with the managers within CASA & AsA who do.

And as for your dummy spit about anonymous cowards & closed minds, that is low Dick, very very low (well below LSALT). As one of your friends pointed out, you were once voted Australian of the Year and beyond reproach (?!!?)
Im sure it wasnt for comments like that!

I for one am happy for anyone to know who I am, but others arent and thats purely because of the recriminations that can follow. Thats why this is an 'anonymous' forum...................

Alex Hilliard

[Blockla]

By the way, Airservices did look at target resolution, but because their radars are multi-radar tracking they said this was ruled out.

Of course, if the military in some locations have displays which are not multi-radar tracked, there is a chance of using target resolution.Where do you propose? Certainly not WLM (ADATS)...? So you knew it's not possible before this thread began, so what was the point of it? Unbelievable!

[scran]

Sorry Dick, been away watching Jimmy Buffett fall of stage................


Dick - my final words:

Twice now you have been held at Willy, and come on here to make a big song and dance about it. Same as you did when you were stopped from going thru SY VFR in the Caravan (wasn't it?) a few years agaon and again came on here an complained.

According to you:

As I'm ex ATC - I don't like change

As I'm ex Military - I don't want change and am intransient

I don't agree with your methods of change - therefore I have a closed mind.

You think the US system is the be all and end all and want it here becasue it must be better than what we have.


As an aside, you don't seem to understand about Modern radar systems and their displays and the use of multi-tracking to cover blind spots etc.

You don't understand that giving the Tower at Williamtown airspace would NOT help (in the situation you describe - tower had a bunch of airspace, as on weekends you normally provide the whole lot from the Tower - or did when I was there).






Only one person on here has a closed mind - Dick........................

[Arrrj]

G'day Dick (and others),

In Dick's defence I think that you are all missing the point.

To me it is pretty clear - Dick wants (in this case and many others) Australians to look outside our country and use what we find there that is smart.

Dick is a motivated individual and wants the very best for his country - and I think that he has demonstrated this over many years of effort. I can see no reason why a review of the way the US handles things (better no doubt) would not be a good idea.

Don't forget that Dick has actually flown around the world (numerous times) and has ACTUALLY dealt with ATC in these countries...I think he is qualified to comment, unlike some of the other opinions offered.

As a heli pilot flying around Sydney, thanks for 405 and the Victor lane Dick ! As you have said prior, copied from the US.

As for Willy, I have never had a problem transitting through via the coast, and the controllers have been nothing but helpful, and I don't read anywhere in Dick's posts that he is unhappy with them either - despite the insinuation he is bashing the military workers !

On your eyes everyone, there is a bloody good reason Dick is so successful, he has an open mind.

[scran]

Oh - and Dick,

you need to have a word with this "Submarine" friend of yours.




I'm sure, in the current climate, the UK would happily "unload" an excess Nuke or two to us for a bargain price.


Now - ask your Submariner "mate" about the Fundermental Inputs to Capability (FIC) costs of owning/operating those Nukes would be compared to the cost of new diesel electrics.


Oh - and while you are at it - ask him about Diesel electric "indiscretion" rates and how many times he has been delected on Radar.








A P3 NAV with me on Staff College was heard to say when standing along a Collins Class tied up alongside "this is about the only time I've ever seen a diesel sub" - properly operated they are bl**dy hard to detect, and given our extensive experience with them (apart, apparently from your mate) are a cost effective deterent.........



(Phew - got through the whole post without once being tempted to consider how stupid this new bent on the argument is)



Oh - and Arrrj - :yuk:


(want a pissing contest? Tell me your qualifications to discuss ATC procedures. I had 16 years actual experience "on the mike". And READ my comments, for example - I clearly stated I'm not dead against Dick wanting to improve things - I actually think there is scope - it's the way he goes about it that is WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, and while the procedures might be slightly different - the Lane you used at Williamtown was in existance LONG before the Victor lane in Sydney)

[peuce]

Arrj,

I understand how you eggbeater types have to stick up for one another ... as no one else understands how you lot can move your hands, feet, head and tongue all at once ... in six different directions. :confused:

And, I know that Dick thinks he is right ... just like everyone else on here does. However, we can't all be right. The only available option is to go with what the majority think is right ... even if they are wrong.

And don't be under the misconception that Dick is the only one here, or in the Industry, who has tasted overseas practice. Many have.

We have looked at what's on offer around the joint, digested it, compared the offering to our environment and we have formed opinions. However, even our majority opinions get overridden by CASA ... as their right is better than our right ... or even Dick's right.

In the end, Dick's louder voice does not make his right any more righter than ours. He has to learn to live with that.

[The Chaser]

Arrrj Shirley,you can't be serious:-
I think that you are all missing the point
.... errrm no, 'the point' has been well discussed ;)

Wasn't it SY App who did the procedure design for Victor1??

[C-change]

Hey Dick,

Found some info for you. You said;

However, I understand the Williamtown approach does not use mosaic or multi-radar tracking for aircraft that are flying close to the airfield. That’s why the thread is about Williamtown.


The ADATS Radar at all ADF bases is supplied by Raytheon. It is a multi tracking radar that displays the data on the screen using a mosaic picture of heaps of 4x4 Nm squares. Each tile recieves a No 1 radar feed and a secondary feed and can be a comination of MSSR, PSR or both. The computer decides which is the best data, does its techo thing and controller sees a nice return on screen.

This is from the Ratheon site.


Raytheon
Systems Ltd (RSL) - Electronics Systems, developed its
monopulse system in order to attack three problems that
were encountered with standard SSR. These shortcomings
became increasingly evident as air traffic
became denser and a heavier reliance was placed on
processed secondary radar data for air traffic control
(ATC) because it was able to provide positive height
and identity data.
The identified problems associated with the display
screen were 1) track wander, caused by signal interference,
2) garbling of close flying aircraft, making it
difficult to make separate identifications, and 3) false
targets caused by nearby objects reflecting the radar
signals. As a result of these problems, ATC operations
had to provide large aircraft flight path separations
which, in turn, meant longer times spent in loiter prior to
landing and higher fuel consumption.
The track wander problem was overcome by the SSR
monopulse system implementation concept. Instead of
ascertaining bearing by relying on the average of a
number of replies, the monopulse concept typically
needs only one pulse of a single transponder reply,
largely eliminating the risk of distortion from an
interruption of the reply pattern.



Worldwide Distribution

Raytheon claims that at least 30 countries utilize the SSR/MSSR systems. The following countries reportedly have

purchased some form of the Cossor SSR and/or MSSR:
Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Cyprus, Denmark,

Greece
, Hong Kong, India, Jamaica, Norway, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Switzerland, Trinidad/Tobago, United Kingdom, and the United States.





Guess what system the US are using for their upgrade !





The Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) is a system jointly procured by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Department of Defense (DoD) to replace capacity-constrained, older technology systems at FAA and DoD terminal radar approach control facilities and associated towers. Raytheon Company is the prime contractor.




Perhaps they will use the same standards as we do and many others around the world.

[Dick Smith]

Scran
You appear to make out that because I have been held a couple of times that that is the reason I want to follow modern international procedures.

In fact, what I am concerned about is that in twenty-five years the military hasn’t been able to make any changes to their procedures.

As I pointed out, it was in 1983 when flying around the world in my helicopter that I was first held at Williamtown – I think it was for about ten minutes orbiting at Nobby’s.

In my whole world flight of some 350 hours, the only other time I was held was by the military going into Darwin. It was obvious that the procedures the controllers were forced to use were archaic.

What surprises me is that twenty-five years later nothing has changed.

What I am told, of course, is that when they have lots of traffic – say, in 1986 when the Hornet arrived – that the military controllers can bend the rules, break the regulations, and handle a lot of traffic safely.

However, what I have wanted is the rules to allow controllers to make professional judgements – as they do all around the world in other countries – and do this without breaking any rules that could hold them personally liable and most likely result in them losing their licence and jeopardising their career.

I would have thought controllers would be supporting me on this, not abusing me.

What I am told is that the old analogue radar would allow target resolution (if we actually had the procedures promulgated), but the new digital radar isn’t as accurate so it won’t allow this.

Now that’s exactly what I am saying about the military. Whereas the rest of the world has moved from clappy old black-and-white television to colour television and now high definition with far greater accuracy and resolution, from what you are telling me the military has gone backwards.

Imagine if we do have a war and they can’t even tell the separation difference between aircraft – whether they are three miles or one mile. Of course I wouldn’t be surprised if the radar they have installed is absolute crap. They never ask advice. You only have to look at the Super Seasprite fiasco to know that there is a culture in the military to never ask advice, never copy the success of others, and resist change in every way they can.

Of course, the Williamtown “lane” cannot be compared with the Victor one route. In fact, the Williamtown “lane” isn’t a “lane” at all, as it’s in controlled airspace under total control. It’s more of a mandatory route that puts single engine aircraft at low level over the ocean when, in most cases, there is no need for this.

Of course, it was probably designed in about 1932 and no-one has been game to change it ever since.

Why would someone design a system that requires single engine aircraft – quite often with pilots with young families on board, to hold over a densely populated beach at Nobby’s and then orbit out over the ocean where a ditching would most likely result in everyone being drowned.

I can assure you that such incredibly irresponsible and dangerous actions are not seen anywhere else in the world.

Yes, I agree that it doesn’t happen all the time. But it happens enough to add to risk to an extent that is totally unnecessary.

Scran, I do understand that modern radar systems use multi-radar tracking to cover blind spots, but I am not referring to aircraft in a blindspot overhead the Willi field. I am talking about an aircraft which is flying along the beach in very good and accurate radar coverage from the head at Williamtown.

Scran, you say that you are not actually against “Dick wanting to improve things” but then you go on to say “I actually think there is scope”, but then you criticise me by saying “it’s the way he goes about it that is wrong”.

Scran, I have been on this point for twenty-five years. For about the first fifteen years I worked quietly behind the scenes. People in the military hierarchy said that they agreed that we should follow modern procedures and that’s what we would be doing. But in fact it didn’t happen. These people were simply not game to make a decision because – presumably – they did not want to be held accountable. Why would they fib to me in this way? Why wouldn’t they simply state, “Dick, we have no interest in what happens overseas. We have done it this way for over fifty years and we are never going to change - get lost!”.

I will say it again here – anyone who works for the military must have very low morale because the leadership is incredibly deficient.

The fact that no-one in the military makes a public statement or even a statement on this site explaining the reason(s) why the modern procedures that are used in other leading aviation countries cannot even be considered here shows how deficient they are.

Never fear. One day if one of these small planes drops into the ocean killing everyone on board, including young children, there will be a major public outcry, huge royal commission costing anything from $50 to $100 million, and then the changes will be made.

I am suggesting we do this before this unnecessary and avoidable accident occurs.


Peuce
no, your majority opinions don’t get overridden by CASA – they get overridden by an individual in CASA who is probably ex-military and who probably never in their life made a decision that he or she could be held accountable for.

Those of you who work for the military know you are being let down and I realise you can’t say anything about it. Let’s hope some changes can be made – hopefully because of some of the pressure I try and apply before lives are needlessly lost.

[scran]

Dick, Dick, Dick...............................:rolleyes:


This is getting tiresome - don't you ever get sick of being like this?

Your lack of understanding about several issues in your post continues to prove that you use half-arsed information, or selective information, based on third hand advice from people who are not that smart. Your discussion about target resolution etc is so stupid it's almost funny!!!!!

Oh - you got a Sea Sprite reference in - well done!

Your comments about black and white TV and current displays etc is laughable. The previous SURAD analog radar defence used was a 23cm radar - on a C130 sized aircraft at 40 miles it was not uncommen to have a radar return almost 4 miles wide in some instances!! The new radars at 10CM or so (can't rememebr - my closed mind is failing me) remove a lot of that problem - but in nearly ALL modern ATC systems the display is effectively synthetic - you are not looking at a "raw" cathode ray tube.......

I'm surprised you talk about morale - you don't appear to understand anything about it...........

You SHOULD know from your time as CASA Chairman the REAL situation about changes to ATC/Airspace rules etc - yet you bang on about 1983 around the world flights.........

Yup, I'm sure you understand how you get OUTSTANDING coverage of aircraft at low level from land based radars.

I know you have been on about it for 25 years. You had a chance to change things when you were CASA Chairman - your Airspace changes in late 90's went terribly well didn't it?


I'm pleased to see you make a comment about how crap Raytheon Radars are - why don't you write to them and repeat your comments - I'm sure they will value your contribution.


Oh, and as to never asking advice - the team of controllers and engineers did a 5 week tour that included visiting radar sites or manufacturers in several USA locations, several UK locations, Italy, Spain, Finland, Sweden and Norway during the tender evaluation process..........:eek:

Yes - I said it before and I'll say it again - coming on here bleating about procedures etc and displaying your poor understanding of issues is NO WAY to achieve the changes you want - and you wonder why your are ignored or marginalised................


Please - do us all a favour :ok:

Give it a rest! :ugh:




Goodbye :cool:

[Jack Ranga]

I would have thought controllers would be supporting me on this, not abusing me.

You're funny Dick :ok:

[Arrrj]

peuce - thanks for the measured and humerous response.

scran - that's a lot of vitriol, I am not sure what I did to deserve that ? I certainly did not put myself forward as an expert on ATC matters (I'm just a pilot), but I did support Dick's view of the world ! (OK, that was enough ?).

Dick - don't give in...25 years of effort should not be wasted !

The Chaser - the "point" is that Dick won't give in, and nor should he.

[scran]

Arrrj:



I reckon the following line is why I reacted so:

"In Dick's defence I think that you are all missing the point."


To use your analogy: I've driven in several overseas countries - does that make me well qualified to talk about road rules? :confused:


Now, go back and read the whole thread...............................

[Creampuff]

Dick

For all your intelligence and experience, you appear to have become an unusually slow learner.

To get what you want, you only need 3 people on your side, but none of the three reads pprune.

Their surnames are Windsor, Katter and Oakeshott. Get them onside, and Julia will give you anything you want. Once she's seen the 'strength' of your argument, Julia will move Willytown, if that tickles your fancy.

There's no point arguing with the monkeys, Dick (especially when the monkeys can shoot your arguments down so easily). (Speaking of bad arguments, if orbitting in a single engine aircraft off Nobbys is so dangerous, V1 must be closed, now. And how many people died at Lockhart River, and what changed as a consequence?)

You need to convince the organ grinders, Dick. And the organ grinders are interested in only one thing: getting and staying in power. The merits of your arguments are relevant only to the extent that they impact on the organ grinders' interests. Bad news for you: Without Windsor, Katter and Oakeshot up your sleeve, your arguments about Willytown have zero impact on the organ grinders' interests.

[scran]

Creampuff.


:D :D :D :D :D :D :ok:

[le Pingouin]

I would have thought controllers would be supporting me on this, not abusing me. Because you bloody well won't listen to those same controllers telling you facts about how radar & the rules work :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

What I am told is that the old analogue radar would allow target resolution (if we actually had the procedures promulgated), but the new digital radar isn’t as accurate so it won’t allow this. You have been told no such thing. It's just your wilful misinterpretation of the reality that's being presented to you.

Analogue returns are smeared out blobs so the inaccuracy of the return is inherently displayed by the physical size of the return on the screen.

With a digital return I can zoom my display in & out as I like & the radar symbol remains exactly the same number of pixels. I could zoom right in to a screen that's about 12 miles across. The radar symbol remains the same number of pixels. At that range you can see the returns do a drunkards walk a few tenths of a miles left & right of the nominal track. The radar symbol is giving no indication of the accuracy.

Pixels do not equal the same miles at arbitrary distances from radar heads & screen zooming.

Are you telling me you'd be happy for me to "target resolve" you (i.e. symbols not touching) with returns that are less than a tenth of a mile apart when they could be wandering by two or three tenths? What a shame the returns both jigged the wrong way & hadn't actually passed. "Sorry Mrs. Smith, targets were resolved".

Because that is what you're supporting.


Now that’s exactly what I am saying about the military. Whereas the rest of the world has moved from clappy old black-and-white television to colour television and now high definition with far greater accuracy and resolution, from what you are telling me the military has gone backwards. For the last time it was the nature of analogue radar that allowed for target resolution. Digital radar does not share this nature so can't be used in the same way. Get a bloody clue because abusing people when you don't have one just makes you look foolish.

[Dick Smith]

Creampuff, I aggree with your comments about the organ grinders!

[Dick Smith]

Le Ping In that case why not give the Tower some extra Airspace like Canberra?

No way, the concrete has set.

[le Pingouin]

Dick, airspace has exactly what to do with radar target resolution & your seeming inability to accept it can't be used on any digital radar system, military or otherwise?

The concrete has set alright....

Are you going to drop target resolution now?

[max1]

Didn't the Tower 'own' the airspace on the weekend in question?

[The Chaser]

A crude symbol depiction (without history trails) for illustration. Two fictitious aircraft.

1. HEL – VH-COK
2. BE20 – VH-AMB

Let's say for arguments sake, the screen range in each case below is 40nm (about right for most Approach functions)

Below, Raw radar (blobs), beacon control slash's (************) not touching = Target Res’

............. COK ............ ......AMB
....... ......./............... ........./
. ****[####]**** ****[####]****

. .... .......[.. . --- 3nm ---.. . ]

Below, same 'actual' distance apart, Synthetic Radar (modern) 3nm Separation.

......... .... COK.......... ....... AMB
............... /............ . ........ /
............ (+)............ ...... (+)

Below, how Target Res’ (not touching) would look if used with Synthetic display

........ .... COK AMB
........ ...... /... /
............ (+) (+)

............. [ -- ] = 4/5ths of nothing between (actual aircraft positions) on an Approach RADAR scale screen :ooh: :suspect:

Disk, DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE?, and why it would be a safety PROBLEM!!!!!!!

http://images.paraorkut.com/img/pics/images/m/monkey-844.bmp

:E .... love yer work Creamie :D :ok:

[Jack Ranga]

VH-COK

lofl :D gold mate :ok:

[Hugh Jarse]

Oh - you got a Sea Sprite reference in - well done!

We all knew the Sea Sprite was doomed, Scran. Cracks were found all over them very early in the peace.. :E

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i6/HugeArse/ChopperCracks.jpg

[The Chaser]

ppppppfffffffffffffff ..... :} :D

Those Sea Sprite's really did stink :E

[scran]

Max1 - yes, Tower did own all the airspace at the time. Dick has been told that SEVERAL times :eek:





Don't confuse Dick with facts - remember - the concrete has set!!!


WHo has the closed mind now?

[C-change]

The Chaser,

Your posts are as funny as all F#%@, LMAO. Very good.

Dick,

Mate, why is it, that you get stuck into others about not answering your questions but you refuse to answer any of mine?

I have tried to explain things to you, supplied info about radars and even asked you for further explanations on your theories, in an attempt to see if it was a worthwhile propostion, but get nothing in return. Why?

I'll try again;

1. On the day in question, did you at anytime ask for a higher level or direct to the OH ? If not, then why not ?

2. Can you please explain exactly how the TWR having the airspace (and they did on this day) will stop you from being held in future ? Nb: I have worked there so don't give some made up BS explanation please.

3. If the Aus military is so backward, why is the US FAA installing the same radar and system the ADF has used for ten years and adopting the same ICAO standards?

4. Why won't you open your mind and listen to the people that use the equipment day in day out ? We are not on here telling you how to operate your A109.

And;

As I pointed out, it was in 1983 when flying around the world in my helicopter that I was first held at Williamtown – I think it was for about ten minutes orbiting at Nobby’s.

In my whole world flight of some 350 hours, the only other time I was held was by the military going into Darwin.


That just shows the ADF provide a consistent, standardised service around the country :ok:

PS, ADF members are less likely to come on here and engage with you, as it will more often than not, end their employment.

[le Pingouin]

Excellent ASCII Chaser :ok:

Must.....Not......Crack......Jokes....... Oh damn.

[le Pingouin]

Hey Jack, was that a holiday snap of you? :}

[The Chaser]

Bwahahahahaha :} :ok:

... I reckon you might be right about the holiday snap :E

[NTZ]

Dick,

Your lack of knowledge is letting you down.

from what you are telling me the military has gone backwards

If by "adopting proven overseas equipment", means going backwards, then yes.

By military, I'm assuming you only mean Military ATC, because the military employs a few other groups of people to watch aircraft on RADAR using different systems. I'm just trying to cut off that "we're screwed when the war starts" argument.

In which case, Military ATC systems have a few civil requirements to meet before they will be permitted to separate civil aircraft. Again, you target military, but this isn't an exclusively military problem.

Is there a personal issue there Dick?

why not give the Tower some extra Airspace like Canberra

The tower cannot see aircraft in the corridor apart from a few gaps in the dunes, so they would have to predominantly use the RADAR, just like the Approach Controller. It's a benefit vs workload balance, and considering that the Tower Controller's job is focussed on circuit traffic management, approach is usually the best choice.

What I am told, of course, is that when they have lots of traffic – say, in 1986 when the Hornet arrived – that the military controllers can bend the rules, break the regulations, and handle a lot of traffic safely.

First. It isn't 1986 and despite your claims, ATC has evolved - remarkably, managing to ditch a few bad habits along with picking up some more along the way. This job is barely recognisable from the one it was ten years ago.

Second, Bend and break rules - sure it happens, but not without consequences. You take the risks into your own hands, you are personally responsible. Also, one or two controllers doing so doesn't make it a procedure, nor right for that matter. It's exactly the same as flying.

Third, there are procedures that relax some of the standards/restrictions for military aircraft, but these do not apply to civil aircraft. I'm pretty sure that this was stated earlier in the thread.

Fourth, 'hearsay' isn't used in court for a reason. You berate us for anonymity but hide behind a mysterious third person to mitigate your part in the statement should it be found to be inaccurate.

A final question - I know it was a few years ago, but do you actually know for certain which aircraft it was that you held for or is it just an assumption? Surely you can see why I need to ask this one.

[Dick Smith]

Once again for all to hear - the Tower did not "own" the airspace on that day or any day.

The FAA controllers I have spoken to say their Class C would not be able to be operated efficiently if the tower did not own the airspace to the zone boundary at 5 miles.

Why shoud it be any different here?

The US has both target resolution and tower airspace - we have neither.

Why are we so different?

Because change is resisted and in some places tower controllers are looked down upon by radar controllers and that can result in the tower controllers not being given the extra airspace and responsibility that could facilitate efficient operations.

[NTZ]

The US has both target resolution and tower airspace - we have neither.

What do you mean neither? Willy Tower has airspace - 5NM up to the coast (incidentally, stopping at the coast because of the Coastal Corridor). The only time they don't is in IMC.

It's only the major airports where the tower doesn't routinely have airspace.

Have I misunderstood the statement?

[scran]

Dick,

I've done two tours of Willy as a controller, been rated in every control position there.

If, as you state, you were on Tower frequency, then procedures have not changed and Tower controls (that is Dick - owns - you can't control airspace you don't own) the lane. They may have held you on advice/direction of Approach, but Tower "Owns" the airspace.

What time of day did this happen? Are you sure the one controller was not providing several services? Just because you are on Approach frequency doesn't mean you are talking to a controller who is NOT in the Tower. The callsign means nothing - even when doing Approach from the Tower - to an aircraft on Approach frequency you can call yourself Approach rather than Tower (circumstance dependent - damn - controllers being flexible - who'd have thought?).

How would you in your aircraft know that is not the case. Even back in 1976 when I started there, we had the ability to transfer the Approach Frequencies to the Tower position. When SURAD was installed in 1977 or 78, we then gained a radar screen in the Tower, and suitably rated controllers sould provide a radar service on either/or and indeed BOTH Tower and Approach frequency at the same time.


Come on Dick........

[ferris]

Here I was thinking that Dick had been arguing long and hard in the past to reduce the amount of airspace towers owned. Something about focusing on the runway, because that is where the risk is (or some such rubbish)? Now, you want a tower to have more airspace- because it's more efficient.

It's really lucky you aren't in a position to make decisions, Dick, because you would be reversing them every time you got held, or some other thing crops up that suits you personally. As evidenced on this thread, even when shown to be wrong, you can't accept it. Crash or crash thru lives on.

[Capn Bloggs]

in some places tower controllers are looked down upon by radar controllers and that can result in the tower controllers not being given the extra airspace and responsibility that could facilitate efficient operations.
That's exactly what I do with my FOs. Works a treat. Nothing ever goes wrong. :}

[C-change]

Once again for all to hear - the Tower did not "own" the airspace on that day or any day.




Thats not correct Dick, the controllers regularly "combine in the tower" at all bases, at different times and have done for many years. Willy combines on weekends, so does Townsville and every where else that I have worked.

Its called flexibility. It happens because the Approach cell is located with the Tower and Defence controllers still hold endorsements in both elements. Something AsA ditched years ago.

This one is a beauty;

Because change is resisted and in some places tower controllers are looked down upon by radar controllers and that can result in the tower controllers not being given the extra airspace and responsibility that could facilitate efficient operations.


What a load of CRAP. Doesnt happen when you all hold the same ratings. That really shows me that you have NFI about ATC and your above statement pisses me off. That would be like accusing you of being a lesser pilot, because you fly helicopters.

You still haven't answered any of my earlier questions !

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I 'lurved' my last excursion thru Willy airspace quite a 'few' years ago - the cnce read something like like 'proceed at a ht. NOT above 500ft, coastal along the beach, report Nobby's, report clear at Pt Stephens lighthouse.....

So....away we went...until the TWR asked us to report abm the field as he could not sight us, (PA-24) ....so we 'raised' ourselves above the sandhills so he could see us / we could see the field, and as soon as we said 'ABM the field' & he said OK, we descended again to cruise below (NOT above) 500ft and gave the seagulls heaps....

A Day to remember....

Cheers:ok:

(Troo Story....):ok:

[Dick Smith]

Scran, I was not on the tower frequency and I have not said that. I was on the willy approach frequency and there was a separate tower controller on the tower frequency at the time.

C change, what separation standard do the tower controllers use between IFR and VFR when they are operating the entire combined airspace as you claim?

Why is it only in Canberra class C that the tower controls the airspace to the zone boundary? What advantages are there in this and why can't willy airspace copy this proven system?

Are the tower controllers at willy approved to use a radar separation standard when they are in the tower? Do they have the correct equipment to do this in the tower?

?

[peuce]

Dick,

I think all your questions (and more) have been adequately answered by the guys above.

You are now just prolonging the agony.

I think it's time to either withdraw gracefully or contact CASA and seek their support for your "proposal".

[C-change]

Here I go again, answering Dick's questions. Maybe one day he will answer mine. Here goes;


C change, what separation standard do the tower controllers use between IFR and VFR when they are operating the entire combined airspace as you claim?




First up its not a claim, its fact. They combine when traffic dictates, ie weekends, late at night. All bases do. The separation standards do not change whether combined or not. Class C is still class C. What changes is where the service is provided from. When combined, the Approach controller is in the Tower and provides both the Tower and Approach service, ie you are talking to the Approach controller when combined, who is also providing the Tower service. It is the Approach controller who "owns" all the airspace and they release portions (5nm, CTZ etc) to the Tower controller for aerodrome operations, as required. The tower controllers number one tool in separating planes (and helicopters) is the good old human eyeball, "Visual separation". Thats why I keep asking you, if you asked for direct tracking to the airfield, where the tower controller may have been able to visually separate you and the kingair.

It doesn't matter who is providing the service, the person cannot reduce the separation standard in place (3Nm or 1000', yes I know there are more) until both aircraft are sighted by Tower and on the same frequency, or its assigned to the pilot.


Why is it only in Canberra class C that the tower controls the airspace to the zone boundary? What advantages are there in this and why can't willy airspace copy this proven system?




Very difficult to answer as I have never worked there. Speculation only maybe, maybe it is easier for Tower, as there are plenty of well known landmarks to use as geograhpical features to separate with. Maybe its endorsements, qualifications, maybe Radar coverage is poor due to terrain? I don't know, you would have to ask them.


Are the tower controllers at willy approved to use a radar separation standard when they are in the tower?

That depends on the individual in question and their job. As I said 'Vis sep" is the primary tool for a Tower controller and they can use the radar for certain information. There are too many variables to list here, thats why we have MATS. Also remember the person doing Tower may not have done the "Radar" course yet, ie not employed as an Approach controller yet. They could have just arrived and still doing training and only completed Tower. Please note that they are all Air Traffic Controllers, who can be employed in either Tower or Approach, if they are qualified and endorsed. An example would be a PPL who only flies a R22. They are a qualified helicopter pilot, but not checked out on a gas turbine, or multi engine As355 etc. I'll leave it at that, as the variables are huge and I'll be here all day.


Do they have the correct equipment to do this in the tower?




The equipment is exactly the same, just a smaller screen in the Tower. If it was the same screen size as used in Approach room, it would block visibilty of the Runways/Airfield and that could be disastrous.

Because it is smaller, the decison to combine must be made carefully. It is harder to provide Approach on, due to the smaller size but its still safe. The sun on the screen is another factor and obviously traffic densities. You don't want an arrivals sequence of half a dozen planes or more, whilst trying run an aerodrome with 5 in the circuit. Its just dangerous and you can't watch them all.

This is not something new and has been done for many years. AsA also combine sectors when traffic dictate. Both organisations have a book full of rules and procedures for when to combine or not.

I hope that this has helped answer some of your questions. As its a beautiful sunny day, I'm off fishing before the wind gets up.

[scran]

Dick,

You continue to argue for arguments sake.

You have been proved factually wrong several times.

You refuse to acknowlegde when you have been proved wrong.

To answer your questions - yes, if suitably qualified, Tower controllers can use radar to provide separation. Yes they have the correct equipment - they have almost exactly the same displays as the Approach Controller.

If you were on Approach Frequency - how do you know you were held because of Tower Requirements? Do you in fact , KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE SITUATION DEFINATLVELY?

You have effectively defamed the senior leadership of the ADF with yoru vitriole.

Once again - I state, categorically:

YOU ARE BENEATH COMTEMPT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You continue to prove (and trust me, we don't require confirmation) that you in fact an utter fool.



Come on moderators - you will probably ban me for this, but you should:

Ban the fool who started this thread - step up/harden up!!!!

(PS - and if you continue to let fools like Dick post **** like this - I don't care for this site anyway)


Dick - go buy a yatch or something....get another hobby (because I was a proffessional ATC, where you have NEVER been more that a hobby pilot.................)

[YPJT]

Scran,

:D:D:D

This is going straight to the pool room. :ok:

[Jack Ranga]

Scran,

He wont get banned over his behaviour. A few of us know why ;)

Dick continues to defame, slander and abuse (according to the rules that the rest of us get banned for).

Any logical person saw the evidence produced to prove Dick embarrassingly wrong on the bullsh!t procedure he proposes. He subtly changes tack and continues to slander :ugh:

[scran]

Guys,

I take no pride in what I have said there.

I have been a military controller, at Williamtown,and Darwin when he was held, and in Air Force HQ. not just some ****-kicker - Late in my career (1975-2007) I was at one stage the second most senior officer in the branch....................

There are piles and piles of files full of bull**** from the man.

I distinctly remember, during he user pays debate, when I was tasked, in concert with some otehr guys, to draft a reply ot one of Dick's rants.


The draft told Dick, in pretty clear terms, that we had examined his argument, and that it didn't hold water, and that he should (in nice terms) piss off and get a new hobby.

DCAF walked out and said to me "while I agree with your sentiment, apparently Dick went to school with Bronwyn Bishop - or so we were told, as well as a major contributor to the Liberal Re-election fund - this being 1997 or 98 - who at that time was Minister for Defence Personnel, and that we didn't want to risk upsetting Dick - "so tone this down".

I have also been in Air Services in Canberra and heard Dick scream down the phone at Adrian Dumsa during Dick's ranting for the airspace change debate - then be told by Adrian that 15 minute later Dick rang all flowers and love.....the man may well be certifiable.........

Dick, we didn't lie to you - but you used your connections as such that you could NEVER be told how f**king stupid your letters to Air Force were.


Guys, thanks again for your support - I don't expect to see you on here after this.

PS - Dick - pm me if you dare, I'll give you a contact number, and Il'l explain a LOT of home truths to you.........:cool:


PPS - note Dick, that the Moderator's here use anonymous names. I no longer have ANY connection to military ATC, but cannot stomach your stupidity nor your attack on the military. If you must, ring the Chief or the Air Force - he knows who SCRAN is............(and has known me since we were both 17 years old)

[scran]

Hey Dick....I just went back to your original thread:

The problem? I think it was caused by an air ambulance aircraft on approach to 12.


So as I said, you have absolutely NO IDEA what the real situation was.......:rolleyes:


f**king tool :eek: :ugh: :yuk: :=

[Dick Smith]

Scran

Thanks for spending the time in answering the questions. I will PMU and have a talk on the phone.

Scran, what you don’t seem to answer is why we have to be so different. When I fly in the United States and Canada and other countries I am not held by the military – they facilitate movement of traffic when it’s close to a tower.

The controllers in the United States tell me that if their Class C airspace did not have tower airspace to the control zone boundary, that it would restrict operations tremendously and they would have to hold aircraft. That’s exactly what happens here.

You no doubt remember Brian Kendall when he was in a management position in air traffic control. He assured me that before he retired, he would have tower airspace at all Class C airports in Australia. In fact, he only succeeded with Canberra and a little bit of airspace from the Sydney tower to Cape Banks.

Your colleagues have explained that to handle decent amounts of traffic at Williamtown they have had to break the rules. However, if we had tower airspace which is proven in other countries, they would not have had to do this.

Simply what I am saying, Scran, is that expert professional controllers tell me that they could not operate Class C airspace and, in fact, Class B without the controller being responsible for the airspace to the control zone boundary.

Here we do not do this at a place like Williamtown, and aircraft are consistently held.

You amaze me when you say that a tower controller can be responsible for the visual separation of traffic and, at the same time, be administering a radar standard between IFR and VFR aircraft. This is pretty-well unique in the world – especially when there for civilian operations – which Williamtown often opens solely for.

If you look back on the original airspace plans proposals you will see there was a definite plan to go to tower airspace at all of these Class C airports and the military control zones like Williamtown and Sale.

Clearly this was an accepted proposal to go ahead with and strongly supported by Brian Kendall with his years of experience, but you now don’t seem to support this, preferring to support the status quo.

In relation to any letters I wrote to the military, all you had to do was write back and explain the truth. For example, once I wrote and asked why Williamtown does not have tower airspace to the control zone boundary as they do in other leading aviation countries. I simply never received an answer to that one, because I think people probably looked at it and thought “that would be a good idea, it would facilitate the movement of traffic, however that will require change and that’s a helluva lot of work and there will be these concrete minded troglodytes who will run a campaign against it”.

Then, Scran, I don’t think the problem had anything to do with it being an air ambulance flight. I have been held when there is a 182 aircraft operating to the runway.

If the air ambulance flight had used the terminology “cancel IFR” when they were on the visual approach, can you explain if I would have been held under those circumstances? i.e. two VFR aircraft. I somehow think not, but there is no leadership shown in telling aircraft when it is sensible to cancel IFR so traffic does not have to be held in risky circumstances.

I can understand why you are so angry – it just confirms what I believe, and that is the senior people in the military lack leadership qualities. Otherwise, they would have openly examined the target resolution procedures and tower airspace, and provided a simple official explanation – in the last twenty years – on why it can’t be used here.

They haven’t done this because I believe any good inquiry into this would show it should be the way to go.

[scran]

Dick,

Don't bother - I'm not going to talk to you - there would be no point.


Tower having airspace would not have helped this situation. No way in the world......................


I was a professional controller, and I could quite easily control aircraft as a Tower Controller without having airspace to the Control Zone Boundary.



Just let it go..............................

[Capn Bloggs]

If the air ambulance flight had used the terminology “cancel IFR” when they were on the visual approach, can you explain if I would have been held under those circumstances? i.e. two VFR aircraft. I somehow think not, but there is no leadership shown in telling aircraft when it is sensible to cancel IFR so traffic does not have to be held in risky circumstances.

That's it, isn't it Dick? An IFR aircraft that probably wants to retain the protection that IFR status affords has to change to VFR just so you can go on your merry way. Have you ever thought that the other pilot may not be able to see you and so will not accept VFR? Or that he might be getting busy for the approach? Or that his pax didn't deserve it?

I can tell you there are two chances of me changing to VFR just to facilitate you (unless I can see you and you do what I require): None and Buckley's.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

there is no leadership shown in telling aircraft when it is sensible to cancel IFR so traffic does not have to be held in risky circumstances.



Are you serious?

That statement is so wrong on so many levels of intelligence...

To be clear..you still want Class D airspace and you want that visual class D tower to tell pilots when it is safe to cancel IFR....to facilitate traffic????

Why do you have this problem that the tower MUST only look after the three miles around the tower and nothing else? Does that mean you want a full approach service at class D as well?

Smith....how many times since the AOPA and the RAAF had their little chat have you been held at WLM?

[The Chaser]

Disk said
You amaze me when you say that a tower controller can be responsible for the visual separation of traffic and, at the same time, be administering a radar standard between IFR and VFR aircraft. This is pretty-well unique in the world – especially when there for civilian operations – which Williamtown often opens solely for.Well be amazed Disk, because that is what EVERY radar equipped tower in the world uses it for, until an ATC visual and/or runway standard is achieved.
In relation to any letters I wrote to the military, all you had to do was write back and explain the truth
Like the years of response letter writing to you (from most agencies), with truth, techical reasoning, etc etc. You know, the ones you then ignore, or publish, often then abusing the author for not agreeing with you.

Bit like the truth you have been provided in this thread ..... IGNORED!

You have a closed mind, set in concrete! :=

[Dick Smith]

Scran - It looks a little bit as though your mind is closed. You state

I was a professional controller, and I could quite easily control aircraft as a Tower Controller without having airspace to the Control Zone Boundary

Scran, that is probably because the approach controller was holding the aircraft orbiting endlessly over the ocean at the wreck or at Nobby’s.

Capn Bloggs – if cancelling IFR and being given traffic on another aeroplane which is about five miles away at 500 feet over the water when you are coming in from the west does not give adequate “protection”, how would the same air ambulance pilot and people like yourself fly every day into non-controlled airfields in Australia?

As I mentioned previously in this thread – when the Williamtown control zone is not active and it is a C-TAF, I have never once heard of an airline pilot requesting that a VFR pilot hold somewhere in the lane.

Traffic information is passed and in this particular case the air ambulance aircraft would have headed in and landed and the VFR aircraft would have headed up the coast at 500 feet.

You seem to think that once air traffic control is involved that we must go to some type of archaic, kindergarten-type level of separation.

ozbusdriver – no, I don’t want Class D airspace. I simply want Class C as it is used internationally where the tower “owns” the airspace to the first control boundary step.

The AOPA meeting with the RAAF and their little chat has had no measurable effect. All that was about the RAAF hierarchy working out ways to operate the system more efficiently without changing any rule or 1930s regulations. That is just not possible!

By the way, no-one has answered a most important question.

At the present time when the airspace is activated at Williamtown for some civilian traffic it is normally activated to a 25 nautical miles radius at ground level. Why is this necessary when Sydney airport operates twenty-four hours per day with ground level airspace only going to 4 nautical miles in the east and 8.5 nautical miles in other directions?

[Capn Bloggs]

how would the same air ambulance pilot and people like yourself fly every day into non-controlled airfields in Australia?
I know the answer. I do it every day. When did you last do it? Open your mind, Dick.

[scran]

Dick,

I worked as a Tower Controller at Williamtown, Butterworth, Darwin and Amberley. At EACH location I controlled without "owning" the airspace to the Control Zone boundary. At Williamtown quite happily with aircraft going up the lane. As I stated, during part of my time at Willy, Tower controlled the lane..........

I even provided the combined Approach/Tower service from the Tower and let aircraft up and down the lane with aircraft in the circuit!!! :eek: :eek:

In my total of 5 years as a controller at Willy, I must have controlled almost a 1000 transits of the lane. I probably remember holding 2 or 3 due to Instrument approaches to Runway 30.

Oh - now it's the first control boundary step? (your answer to Ozbusdriver).

Can you please make up your mind?


Willy doesn't own to 25NM in every direction - stop generalising.........:=



My mind is only closed on one subject - that you are - well, Ive already told you..........a couple of times.............:cool:

[The Chaser]

scran
Willy doesn't own to 25NM in every direction - stop generalising
It is all he has ;)

Here is some facts in support of 'our' fine military and what they do with airspace :ok:

Comparisons

Let’s take a wee trip to Miramar

SkyVector: Flight Planning / Aeronautical Charts (http://skyvector.com/?ll=32.868345556,-117.141734722&chart=126&zoom=3)

Note:-

- The runway/s orientation
- The size of the SFC to A100 areas around the MCAS
- The adjacent A018 to A100 areas outside the SFC CTR
- The distance to the coast, and the CTA base at the coast
- The other airports and airspace around Miramar

San Diego Int’l (south of Miramar) (similar position and runway orientation with the coast as YWLM)

Note:-

- Its proximity to the coast
- The lack of any coastal lane
- The CTR steps east and west
- The runway orientation
- Where the VFR corridor over the top is, and the altitude requirements.
- The approach and departure tracks to and from

Now try (why anyone would want to is beyond comprehension) and apply any of that to YWLM, especially considering they are not only moving Mil Jets.

Comparatively, considering YWLM is all things to all people in that area, rather than Disk whining like an A grade Pratt, how about he show some appreciation for the military, especially considering the number and complexity of aviation activities they juggle as a matter of course, accommodating folks as and when they can (particularly given the airport layout and geographical position).

As for Disk's new Richmond whinge :rolleyes:
I suggest you look at Richmond airspace on the current VTC
Seeing as most proximate military airspace in Australia is adminsitered exactly the same way as in the US, maybe he thinks the US military leadership are suffering from a
complete lack of decision-making ability
as well :yuk:

Tis a tool! :ok:

[Skynews]

Why do professionals pilots and ATC spend time arguing with private pilots?

[Jabawocky]

arguing with private pilots?

Typo Correction........thats "pilot".....as in singular not plural! :ok:

[scran]

Gents - thank you for the supportive PM's.....................



But I don't need encouragement to continue :E



Oh - in an earlier post, I called Dick a Tool. For this I unreservedly apologise.





















As my wife pointed out - tools are useful :ooh:

[C-change]

Skynews said

Why do professionals pilots and ATC spend time arguing with private pilots?


Because he has the contacts and ability to convince those in positions of authority, that his ideas are worlds best, when people who do this job for a living tell him otherwise. I little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Dick,

I'll ask again for the fifth time, why wont you answer my questions ?

I have attempted to answer your questions whilst providing you with plenty of info.


I wont be holding my breath waiting for you to provide any answers, so I have two suggestions for you.

1. Next time you are held at Nobbys try this,
"App, DIK, holding over water with the current sea state is not acceptable, request the coastal lane at 3000' (or not above a level) or direct to the field to overfly", or

2. Go and see your mates in Governement and convince them to get rid of ATC. I'm more than happy to accept a redundancy payout and go find another job. Then you will have your Aviation Utopia.

[Skynews]

Because he has the contacts and ability to convince those in positions of authority, that his ideas are worlds best, when people who do this job for a living tell him otherwise. I little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I'm not convinced that giving this PPL the time of day doesn't give him "some" credibility.

[The Chaser]

It's a fair question Sky

As C-change suggests (I agree), I guess these 'discovery' threads are more about educating those in the food chain that do not have the operational context, and would otherwise be inclined to buy the bulldust from this high profile PPL.

History has sadly proven this to be his playbook :hmm: , so I guess it is more than anything else about connecting the non-op food chain with the operational coalface, before any stupid decisions are made.

As we all know, reverse gears are less and less prevalent, the higher up the monkey tree things go :ok:

[Arrrj]

Scran - Dick has been on about this for a while

(http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/304974-25-years-holding-williamtown.html),

perhaps you can do us all a favour and (re) extend your invitation made on the 30th Jan to have a chat to him about this. Take a deep breath first ?!


(PS - Dick - pm me if you dare, I'll give you a contact number, and Il'l explain a LOT of home truths to you.........http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cool.gif).



Thanks !
Arrrj

[Flying Binghi]

I guess these 'discovery' threads are more about educating those in the food chain that do not have the operational context, and would otherwise be inclined to buy the bulldust...

Hmmm, ...a close look-see at some of The Chaser claims about ADS-B shows one who is expert at spruiking the bull..:hmm:


via Ex FSO GRIFFO, #140;

For those who MAY be interested.....

The Ryan TCAD 9900BX is avbl ex USA for USD$20,200 with the display....and for $19,200 without.


Not your 'everyday - impulse buy' purchase I would have thought

Ex FSO GRIFFO, IMO the price is not the issue here in reference to The Chaser claims - though if yer comparing with ADS-B your current transponder is the 'out' of our current traffic systems, if you want 'IN' then like ADS-B it will cost more.

Here's some prices of traffic systems - http://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?s-type=part&s-seq=1&s-lvl=3&category=Avionics&sub_category=Collision%20Avoidance%20Systems&s-page_size=25&s-page=2




.

[Flying Binghi]

I'm not convinced that giving this PPL the time of day doesn't give him "some" credibility

What are you doing here Skynews ? This is a flying related discussion forum. If yer think somebody is wrong then point it out so all may learn - yer never know, both of you might change yer minds..:cool:






.

[Jack Ranga]

Google 'Flying Binghi' and you all may get an idea of what you are debating with here :ok: His bulletin board and thread bannings make interesting reading ;)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

TC...you get the impression we are doing research for free:hmm:

I just remember the last time it was a 182 held because an aircraft would land over the top of them.....and...clearly!...inside the separation standard...sooooo....Dick waits to be held for an IFR flight landing in the other direction so he can make the same noise but it is harder for a pleb to see the separation standard required for a possible missed approach (On a VFR day)

Make a rule that the tower can tell a pilot to cancel IFR and go visual..to facilitate traffic...even if the pilot cannot see traffic....does that still make them a conflict if the pilot cannot see them? Smith seems to think they will be no threat....Smith says so, so must be OK...???...NUP! that red hasn't kicked in enough...you're still talking BS, Mr Smith!

Then we have to make allowances for nuclear subs and cracked up helicopters that are supposed to find nuclear subs and end up with a broadside against the CDF and his staff...???...Maybe, Mr Smith drinks a good red.

...then...

We get a change in resposibility for the tower...a couple of years ago he wants a small class D tower for WLM so it doesn't hold him up on the coastal lane and NOW he wants a huge area for the tower out to the first class C step so those pesky approach controllers cannot hold him up on the coastal lane....cummon, Dick! What do you want?

Dick...do like everyone else does up there...if you are an occasional flyer, ring up the tower on the phone number in ERSA and ask them if there is any conflict for regular traffic around your ETA and then fit in with them...it IS their sandpit...not yours......AHHHHAAA! that is the problem...it's not YOUR sandpit and you have to play by someone else's rules....have I missed anything?

[Flying Binghi]

via Jack Ranga #142;
Ooooh but Bingha boy, Jack Ranga does own an aircraft http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif Jack Ranga has actually owned two, even got all the receipts! If you asked me how much I paid for the aircraft or any component I could tell you http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Has binga actually own an aircraft? mmmmmmmmm, can't find the receipts eh?

You could even come down to the hangar and have a look? Plenty of pruners have so far? Bit far from Perth I 'spose? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

---------------------------

Google 'Flying Binghi' and you all may get an idea of what you are debating with here http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif His bulletin board and thread bannings make interesting reading http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Jack Ranga, i'm a little mystified about the importance of what i pay for my avionics - as i pointed out a simple google search shows the price of many of the systems.
I have covered TCAS, TAS, TCAD and the like to counterpoint the argument that only the ADS-B offered a 'must have' traffic input. Clearly, when yer can see all the non-GPS based 'traffic' systems that have been around for a few years, and the limited fitment to the Oz GA fleet suggesting low importance, the traffic argument touted by The Chaser and others is nonsense.

"...can't find the receipts eh?..."

Well, Jack Ranga, i do have most of the receipts from day one of my flying - i do though get a little confused at times about what avionics mods were done to which aircraft..;)


"...Google 'Flying Binghi' and you all may get an idea of what you are debating with here..."

Hmmm, the old if yer caint win the argument, attack the poster routine..:hmm:





.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

:mad:Take your rant someplace else, Binghi.

You cannot even make good argument with the Ryan gear.....all that money and only a 180 seconds of warning. A garden variety non TSOd ADS-B Rx unit is good for VHF line of sight..
....just like your own personal SSR[/drift]

[Flying Binghi]

...:hmm:

Take your rant someplace else, Binghi.

You cannot even make good argument with the Ryan gear.....all that money and only a 180 seconds of warning. A garden variety non TSOd ADS-B Rx unit is good for VHF line of sight..
....just like your own personal SSR[/drift]

OZBUSDRIVER, as has been pointed out before, repeatedly, there are many different traffic devices out there. Here's one, again...

"...SkyWatch monitors the airspace around an aircraft and indicates where to look for nearby transponder-equipped aircraft that may pose a collision threat — providing the “big picture” in traffic awareness at a fraction of the cost of TCAS. After receiving replies to its Mode C type interrogations, the SkyWatch system computes the responding aircraft’s range, bearing, relative altitude and closure rate — predicting potential traffic conflicts within an eleven mile range. Aural traffic alerts are annunciated through the aircraft’s existing audio system, and visual targets are displayed using TCAS-like symbols..."

L-3 Communications -> Products & Services -> SkyWatch Collision Avoidance Systems (http://www.l-3com.com/products-services/productservice.aspx?type=ps&id=447)

...and OZBUSDRIVER, if yer concerned about thread drift then ah suggest yer take it up with The Chaser. That's the one ah were replying to around about post #123, and reference my prior comments; a close look-see at some of The Chaser claims about ADS-B shows one who is expert at spruiking the bull..http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif






.

[Jack Ranga]

Binghi, repeatedly your friends make the point:

'you don't own the aircraft and are not paying for the equipment so why should you have a say?'

Well binghi, I don't care what segment people come from, they have a say and the right to be heard. It was your side of the fence that brought aircraft ownership up not me. You bullsh!t about owning an aircraft, I want you to prove that you are an owner. I'm happy to prove that I am. If you are going to make claims prove it.

[scran]

Guys,

I don't see what this line of argument has to do with the original thread.

Can you take it somewhere else and let this (willy issue) die a natural death...please

[Arrrj]

Scran - why don't you honour your offer of a few days ago to Dick, and let him have a chat to you on the 'phone ? I am sure he would love to talk to you and (as you say) you might be able to set him straight. (Or maybe the other way around). Once you have the chat, you can publish the results for all of us to see.

I care about what Dick says, because I am an aircraft owner and regularly fly through Willy.

By the way, to deride Dick as a "PPL" is pretty rough...he may not earn money from flying, but (I estimate) his 10,000 hours PIC (on numerous types) does allow him to voice an opinion surely ? (Even if a few of the regulars don't like it !).

Thanks
Arrrj

[scran]

Arrrj,

I would, but I already know any call would be pointless - my mind is closed - remember? :eek:


And I didn't deride his as a PPL.......................

[Capn Bloggs]

Arrrj,
does allow him to voice an opinion surely ?
If you reckon Dick's merely expressing his opinion, I'd love to be around when he starts getting wound up about something.

Regarding:
I care about what Dick says, because I am an aircraft owner and regularly fly through Willy.

Scran wrote:
In my total of 5 years as a controller at Willy, I must have controlled almost a 1000 transits of the lane. I probably remember holding 2 or 3 due to Instrument approaches to Runway 30.
It reads to me that Dick is carrying on like the media does: totally and utterly over the top.