More RAAF intransigence YBWW/YBOK

[Eyrie]

Many will be aware of the new Brisbane West Wellcamp airport just to the west of Toowoomba. It may or may not be a good thing (or even commercially successful in the end) but it resulted in the Oakey restricted area to the south east of Oakey being removed so that YBWW could operate in class G. The Army didn't use that area much as it is full of people with properties running horses and these and low flying helicopters don't mix.

The RAAF (who control the airspace for the Army), appear to have done a dummy spit and made the remaining Restricted areas RA2 so people can't plan through them although you may get a pop up clearance.

Worse, there has been a long standing arrangement where local GA training and private traffic used Oakey when it wasn't active to do circuit training, touch and goes etc. Been there, done that lots of times in the past myself. Even for controlled airspace practice when active when I did my PPL 20 years ago.

It removes some noise and circuit traffic from Toowoomba and is safer for early solo students (YTWB is surrounded by buildings now with very, very few options off the airport which itself is rather small). It was also a good weather alternative for YTWB as it is lower and further from the range. YTWB suffers from fog and low cloud at certain times of the year.

No more it seems. Civil traffic is now prohibited from using Oakey without specific approval. The local aero club is upset too.

One must ask WHY?

Sure looks like a massive dummy spit to me.

The GA people around Toowooma aren't all that enamoured with YBWW and the way it was approved and it wasn't their doing that it was built and that the RAAF lost some little used Restricted airspace but are now suffering because YBWW was built and the attitude of the RAAF. YBWW isn't a viable alternative for GA as they don't really want light aircraft there. Landing fees are $9 per tonne. Minimum charge $200.

Note that the contract for AIR9000 Phase 7 has been let for the HATS and the current plan is that this helicopter training will be done at Nowra, replacing the helo conversion and advanced training currently being done at Oakey, so there is no planned increase in Oakey traffic.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Maybe it is just a little push-back on the approval process, or perceived lack thereof, for YBWW! :ok:

Dr :8

[red_dirt]

Don't see any issue with a military base restricting their patch for military aircraft

Just because something isn't used that often doesn't mean it won't be used in the future.

[Eyrie]

red dirt, are you any kind of pilot? Nobody is talking of preventing the Army using Oakey (RAAF runs the airspace) when they need it. It has in the past been used by civilians when Army aren't using it, mostly on weekends for circuits and touch and goes or land stop taxi back and take off again.

FTDK, isn't that what I said?
If so they are demonstrating a lack of maturity and and aren't acting like good aviation corporate citizens.
In the past Army pilots posted in to Oakey to temporary ground jobs or even active Army aviators have joined the local aero club. Some have been office holders in it and we all got along fine.
If the RAAF/Army are pushing back because of YBWW they are hurting the wrong people and generating the opposite of goodwill. Most of the GA people I know in Toowoomba hope that YBWW turns into a giant expensive dragstrip. They agree that the approval was done without adequate consultation or planning or consideration of its effects on existing airspace and aerodrome users including the numerous private strips in the area.

Now my off the wall theory is that YBWW won't be commercially viable and there will be a cry of " isn't it a pity that this wonderful asset will go to waste" the Fed Gov will buy it, move the Amberley base there, make Amberley Brisbane's second civil airport, close YTWB and move the GA action there to Oakey (plenty of room there and out of town). The Army can then use YBWW for their remaining helos (ARH Tiger and MRH90 - when they are serviceable, not as often as they would like, both being pieces of Eurocrap)

[junior.VH-LFA]

Mate, YAMB isn't going ANYWHERE.

Way too much $$$ been spent there in the last decade to justify moving.

[red_dirt]

I think you misinterpreted what I'm saying. Oakey are entitled to do whatever they want with their airspace at anytime of the day or night so if they want to restrict it then that's their choice. I am a local twin engine aircraft owner too by the way.

There are plenty of aircraft that still use oakey on weekends for approaches and the like. I also note that a silver R22 does hot laps of the airfield at about 10ft on weekends too.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I don't think its the military who "aren't acting like good aviation corporate citizens" here! :E

[Eyrie]

Mate, since when did wasting taxpayers' money ever stop a government.

I did say it was my "off the wall" theory.

[Eyrie]

FTDK, ?????

I begin to see why Australian aviation is oppressed by the bureaucracy. As soon as somebody points out a high handed bureaucratic restriction which has no good purpose, the sheep start bleating for the shepherd.

red dirt, the taxpayers paid for Oakey. We own it. The Army gets to use it because our politicians let them. Last I heard the military in this country is subject to civilian control which is as it should be.
You may note that Amberley airspace only goes active when the RAAF is using it.
I have no objection to Oakey having restricted airspace if they need it although you may like to look up the airspace on the sectional covering Fort Rucker, Alabama, the US Army aviation headquarters and tell us why the US Army can manage a vast fleet of training helicopters with much less restricted airspace than at Oakey.
My objection is to an arbitrary change to a long standing arrangement which was beneficial to local aviators and had a safety benefit to them in the event of bad weather at YTWB. I've used it myself and that day two other light aircraft were there for the same reason.
If the RAAF/Army want to do a dummy spit because they got orders from above to relinquish some little used restricted airspace it doesn't speak well of them and they are inconveniencing people who had nothing to do with this decision. No good reason has been given for the change.

[thorn bird]

Eyrie,

in the beginning, Australian civilian aviation grew from the military and was administered by the department of defence, unlike the USA, where their military aviation grew from the civilian side.

Once upon a time all the airspace in Australia was owned by the RAAF, who very reluctantly released tiny bits and pieces of their airspace to accommodate a growing civilian industry.

The department of defence have never got over the attitude that they permit civil aviation to operate in their airspace under sufferance.

After WW11 the influx of ex RAAF personnel into the now civilian regulator ensured that authoritarian attitude prevailed, which is why our industry has to endure the regulatory Cr@p served up to us today, and in the opinion of a very senior CAsA person " If I had my way the only aviation occurring in Australia would be the RAAF and RPT".

[Creampuff]

Yes, you must bear in mind that Australians are subjects of the Crown and therefore exist to be governed and taxed. Government is the end, not the means.

The automatic response of most Australians to most problems is to call for the government to do something about it.

That's why I'm always surprised that Australians are surprised about drowning in regulation.

[red_dirt]

I'm not saying you are wrong..... Well maybe a bit... But I suggest you hop in a car or aircraft and come and look at the Oakey airspace on weekends because there are plenty of aircraft in the area.

The only change appears to be that people ate now flying around the CTR during Tower hours

[Arm out the window]

Civil traffic is now prohibited from using Oakey without specific approval

And is approval being granted, or are we just assuming it's not going to be?

[Captain Sand Dune]

Eyrie,

To piggy back on AOTW's comments; ring Oakey ATC and ask. You may be pleasantly surprised.
Given the proximity of YBWW to TW, OK and AMB I reckon it's going to be an a**-pain for everyone when it comes to sequencing aircraft (and I'll assume they're going to be primarily heavies) into and out of YBWW.
As to your 'off the wall theory', I wouldn't lose sleep over it. The cost of establishing the required infrastructure to support any meaningful numbers of ADF aircraft is enormous. Given the budgetary restraints being imposed these days I really can't see it happening any time soon. The ADF just has to make do with the bases it already has.
The automatic response of most Australians to most problems is to call for the government to do something about it.
Aint that the truth!! I think 'the gummint should fix it' is a line in our national anthem!:ugh:

[LeadSled]

Folks,
The last post from "username here" and his ilk is typical of the attitude that makes it so difficult to get efficient airspace usage around Australia's major population centres.

Richmond, Nowra and Williamtown military restricted airspace alone is greater than the total of PR military airspace in the USA.

Have a look at the standard size of a US military or NATO zone, and ask yourselves why the Australian military needs such huge zones. I wonder how the Yanks, the Canadians, the RAF or any of the European air forces manage, but they do. And they do it safely, with little or no disruption or delay to civil traffic ---- of any kind, not just airlines.

The real answer is we don't need these huge area, but the bloody minded intransigent attitude of the RAAF has prevented any proper integration of civilian and military ATC for as long as I have been flying. I have sat in more various airspace committee or planning meetings over the years than I wish to remember, the RAAF representatives are always pleasant, but we never make any progress.

The airspace volume around Amberley and Oakey is just as ridiculously large as around Sydney.

We continue to publish purported restricted military training areas outside Australia's continental limit, which have absolutely no legal standing, but it is the same arrogance as displayed by "username here" that is the basis of why we continue to do so.

It is about time Australia grew up, and stopped behaving like a whole bunch of little waring tribes, all defending their narrow and parochial interests, and to hell with everybody else.

Tootle pip!!

[gerry111]

LeadSled wrote thus:


"It's about time Australia grew up, and stopped behaving like a whole bunch of little waring tribes, all defending their narrow and parochial interests, and to hell with everybody else."


I sure agree with LeadSled.


But back in the days, long past when I was an AOPA member, I eventually realised that this aviation 'Nirvana' was never going to happen. I attended the Temora BBQ 'Do' and later the AOPA AGM's at Moree, Narromine and Murray Bridge.


But what I did discover was that there were several 'larger than life' individuals in the GA world. And that they have massive egos.


I do believe that the reason that we are all are treated with indifference by government and CASA, is that they know we are not united in purpose. Very sad really.

[rutan around]

Usernamehere
You don't seem to understand. The Military don't own anything. The taxpayers own all their land and all their toys.

By sitting on airspace when not using it is nothing more than a sulky child being a dog in the manger.

[Arm out the window]

By sitting on airspace when not using it is nothing more than a sulky child being a dog in the manger.


Yep, that's why a lot of it gets deactivated when not in use - who'd have thought!

[rutan around]

Yep, that's why a lot of it gets deactivated when not in use - who'd have thought!

All well and good if they do that. The original poster gave the impression that things at Oakey have changed for the worse.

[ozbiggles]

Classic stuff Lead
You have a major dummy spit...and then tell everyone to stop fighting.
I did need a laugh today.:ok:

[Captain Sand Dune]

Any excuse for ADF bashing.:rolleyes:

[thorn bird]

Classic example today, heading North from Sydney, stuck at low level because the RAAF had blocked all the airspace from Willy to Dubbo.
Fuel burn was twice what it should have been so the end result my company made no money for the day, and the Hunter valley received a whole lot more greenhouse gasses than it should have.

The taxes my company pays, and the taxes I pay are used to fund these testosterone fuelled people to play their games in the middle of the main North South civilian air corridor.

There are civilian deaths that have occurred because of this, and there will be more in the future until Australia shrugs off its third world mentality.

I always thought that our military were subservient to the peoples parliament, if that is not true then we live in a military dictatorship, much like North Korea.

[red_dirt]

Today.... Tower went de-active at about 1700 and an R44 was flyin over the airfield about 10 minutes later broadcasting on the CTAF about 10 minutes later without a care in the world.

I'm going to suggest that the line about civil aircraft not being allowed blah blah blah relates to during active tower hours and not a blanket no

[rutan around]

Well why don't you rock up to Amberly/Oakey and ask if you can wander across "your" land and play with "your" toys?

See how far you get...

Smart arse comments like this only encourage people to vote in such a way that you'll lose your precious toys.

If the current mob think so little of you that they dock your pay think what the other mob might do.

[thorn bird]

"Bitter you can't play"?

Don't think so mate, I always thought I was born too late.

I got my rocks off flying a spitfire that my Dad owned and flew.

His contempories mixed it up in combat.

They didn't sit above the flak dropping million Dollar bombs to destroy $250 hiluxes.

I have no issue with the RAAF, they have their job to do, but they are funded by civilians, therefore they should recognize and accept that if civilians are economically compromised by their activities there is a danger that their activities eventually will be compromised.

Australian airspace management is unique to Australia, separation of military and civilian traffic is unique to Australia. Is there nothing to be learnt from the way the rest of the world does things??

[rutan around]

But I thought they were your toys?

Yes in the same way my kids toys are bought by me but played with by them.
If they do the wrong thing once too often they lose them. ie bike left in the driveway where I want to drive.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Confiscate Defence capability because you don't get the airspace access you want.

Well, that's the stupidest thing I'll read this week.

[rutan around]

Where will you hide them? How long will you leave the RAAF in the "naughty corner" before you let them have their planes back?

No need to hide them. Just cut the funding and see how much flying they do then.

A suitable time in the naughty corner would be until they realize they are NOT gods-just spoiled brats who need to learn to share airspace with those who pay for their own toys.

[donpizmeov]

Are you sure it's not the taxes the defence types pay that pays for defence? You're an idiot.

The don

[junior.VH-LFA]

Any how many Jet drivers have you actually met?

[rutan around]

Junior asks
Any how many Jet drivers have you actually met? Quite a few actually. I fail to understand what these meetings have to do with the question posed so siccinctly by Thorn Bird

Australian airspace management is unique to Australia, separation of military and civilian traffic is unique to Australia. Is there nothing to be learnt from the way the rest of the world does things??

[josephfeatherweight]

I'm embarrassed by the poor display here by "apparent" members of the ADF.
Well why don't you rock up to Amberly/Oakey and ask if you can wander across "your" land and play with "your" toys?

See how far you get...
Pretty silly comment, mate, paints a pretty poor picture of your attitude.
Any how many Jet drivers have you actually met?
Oh, come on.
For the civvies partaking or reading here, please don't tar us all with the same brush.
Still, this:
testosterone fuelled people to play their games
is similarly inaccurate and immature.
Seriously guys, some of you need to do some growing up.
I've seen both sides of the fence and I've witnessed mil airspace active when it didn't need to be and I think improvements can be made - can't a balanced discussion be had?

[rutan around]

Seriously guys, some of you need to do some growing up.
I've seen both sides of the fence and I've witnessed mil airspace active when it didn't need to be and I think improvements can be made - can't a balanced discussion be had? Spot on Joseph:ok:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Thorn Bird,

As a suggestion you could try taking up your grievance with / via your RAPAC
Member.
These issues do get raised from time to time, and 'sometimes' a compromise can be arranged......but....alas, not always..!

Cheers:ok:

[Arm out the window]

The taxes my company pays, and the taxes I pay are used to fund these testosterone fuelled people to play their games in the middle of the main North South civilian air corridor.

It's fair enough to complain, but keep it realistic. These people (probably a few oestrogen fuelled ones too) are generally working very hard to get to and maintain professional standards that all taxpayers, civil and military, should expect of our air force front liners, not playing games. They need a lot of airspace, and unless the taxpayer wants to stump up multi billions to move the infrastructure somewhere else, there will be some inconvenience for some people sometimes.

Nobody wants to keep airspace active for longer than it needs to be, and it changes over time anyway (witness the Pearce 50 mile circle 30 years ago that's now a much smaller funny shaped thing because they've bent over backwards to accommodate civil traffic, or the East Sale airspace that closes when not in use and has transit lanes so people can get through it easily).

[Creampuff]

They need a lot of airspace.Who says how much they "need", other than "them"?

Who is it that has decided that Australia's single-digit operations need more airspace than the triple-digit operations in other countries?

I can understand the argument that Australia has so few delicate and expensive flying ADF assets that it can't afford to risk them coming near anyone else in the sky, but jeeez, don't insult us with "safety" arguments. :=

[Arm out the window]

It's not an insult, mate, it's just a function of the speed, vertical manoeuvring and all that other knuck stuff they do which needs clear airspace.

Come up with a cost effective alternative to moving the whole setup, fine.

[mcgrath50]

But AOTW, the whole point is the EU and US do the SAME maneuvering in tighter airspace. How do they manage?

[rutan around]

Maybe the answer is to send our fast jet blokes overseas for their training so they can learn to operate in tight spaces. It's win win really. They'd end up better pilots and the rest of us wouldn't be stuffed around with endless restricted areas.

[DoubleGen]

You get better pilots from training in airspace where they can realistically simulate operational realities.

It's a way a small Air Force can train to a high standard.

[Username here]

rutan around

Maybe the answer is to send our fast jet blokes overseas for their training so they can learn to operate in tight spaces. It's win win really. They'd end up better pilots and the rest of us wouldn't be stuffed around with endless restricted areas.


Send a squadron 1000s of miles overseas to train so that you don't have to put on a few more track miles on you way between Dubbo and Sydney?

I'm amazed at how self absorbed some people here actually are! Who's out of touch with reality now?!?!?

[mcgrath50]

You get better pilots from training in airspace where they can realistically simulate operational realities.

Honestly, are we that much more effective than the UK, US, Germany, Singapore etc. etc.?

Genuine question, I don't know. If we are, then maybe it's a worthwhile inconvenience to have.

What I think you air force blokes don't understand is in the commercial world we are about trade offs. Things cost money, whether we like it or not (because this is dirty, dirty management speak), we do a cost/benefit analysis before we scratch our ass. If the benefits outweigh the costs, TO ALL, go for your life. If it doesn't things should be reconsidered.

I don't think anyone isn't appreciating your service, or not smugly proud the ADF/RAAF punches above it's weight. What we are saying is, can you still do these things while having less of a commercial impact on our operations?

:ok:

[Di_Vosh]

Honestly, are we that much more effective than the UK, US, Germany, Singapore etc. etc.?

Can't speak about Singapore but the others? **** NO!

IMHO (based on my experience as part of an army training team in Iraq in 2006/2007) is that when compared to professional armed forces like the British and the Americans, the ADF are like school children playing at grown-ups.

DIVOSH!

P.S. This is in no way meant to be a criticism of the front line soldier (and I include combat pilots in this) but is a criticism of our middle and higher level defence leadership.

[LeadSled]

Classic stuff Lead
You have a major dummy spit...and then tell everyone to stop fighting.
I did need a laugh today.:ok:

Ozbiggles,
Your "major dummy spit" is my statement of fact, based on too many years of experience.
Tootle pip!!

[rutan around]

This was lifted from another thread currently running.

PPRuNe posters postulate proposals periodically, promptly pointless pirouetting proceeds. This statement is probably quite correct. However if airing problems and offering solutions fixes even one of the myriad problems in Aust aviation it's better than nothing.

Send a squadron 1000s of miles overseas to train so that you don't have to put on a few more track miles on you way between Dubbo and Sydney?
User,
If only it was that simple. Obviously you have never flown VFR or if you have you've never flown out of sight of your departure point. Otherwise you'd understand the problem better.

When weather is less than brilliant for a run from YBAF to YSBK it is often safer to track coastal out of the clouds and out of the mountains. All is good until Williamstown. I've spent so much time circling Broughton Island waiting for a clearance that I've had to change orbiting direction to prevent dizziness.

I don't mind reducing altitude to 500 ft if necessary so long as I can keep going. Why can't the restricted area follow the beach which at it's closest is over 3 nm from the airfield? I don't believe any aircraft using YWLM would not be able to achieve 1,000 ft or better in 3 nm. Beaches provide very certain navigation for VFR pilots. Stay over water and yer right. Drift over land and yer not.

Operation Pitch Black is another fairly regular disruption to NT flying. I wonder how many other countries allow their military to tie up a similiar area as we do in Australia for a couple of weeks for each exercise. At more than half a million square km the area is bigger than a lot of countries.

Before some of you get your knickers in a knot I'm not saying we shouldn't have Pitch Black. I'm just saying that more effort should be made to accommodate non-military aviation traffic. If air traffic controllers can safely handle GA and airline traffic into busy places like Sydney, surely the military controllers can keep Wild Wallaby and Bad Bandicoot away from the rest of us

[autoflight]

I have had my fair share of mixing with very fast single pilot jets, including a few moments of risky behaviour by said pilots. Sometimes airspace is not suitable for all types and wide separation is warranted. Some of VFSPJs are being operated by folks with less than 300 hours grand total and soon they may be putting their lives on the line in Iraq or elsewhere.
Time to let them get on with their training without whinging.

[mullokintyre]

For every negative report, their is usually at least one good one.
Some years ago, I was flying into Darwin from Melbourne via Katherine in my trusty VFR single Comanche.
Never been there before, so I that morning rang the RAAf ATC guys and asked for some advice so as not to cause to much panic.
Spoke to a young lady who asked for my call sign and approximate arrival time.
She said she would be on duty at that time, and just to call up in the Estern VFR lane reporting point.
When I got close to darwin, the smoke haze was horrendous, it was rough as buggery and my kids were throwing up.
Was having trouble identifying things at 1000 ft AGL in completely unfamiliar territory. The RAAF ATC lady recognised my call sign , said hi, and made sure I headed to the west of track to avoid some of the worst smoke. Told me to keep looking for C150 doing circuits. Eventually spotted him ahead, so she said just follow him in and all will be well.
In the meantime there was an increasingly frustrated Neptune driver wanting to expedite into a straight in approach. As I had the wheels out , all flaps and half the door open trying to slow the Comanche down so as not to run up the clacker of the C150, our Neptune almost demanded he get priority.Tthe lovely lady in ATC reminded him that these GA pilots were paying for their own fuel as well as his, and he would just have to wait. There was a shocked silence from all, though I must admit I was laughing out load.
I got off that runway in about three seconds from touchdown, which at least allowed the guy to get his heavy down without a go round.

Mick

[Aussie Bob]

Time to let them get on with their training without whinging

Yeah right Autoflight. How come you and your cronies never explain why so much less airspace is required by your American counterparts when there are a so many more of them? Are they better pilots?

[cbradio]

Maybe it isn't the standard of the knucks, but the standard of the guy they have to avoid?;)

[thorn bird]

Oh dear, we are descending into another willy waving episode.

East coast OZ alone blocks off more airspace for our military brethren than the entire USA. We have vast areas available where traffic is non existent, why do our skygods have to wave their willies in our most congested civilian airspace?

[Chronic Snoozer]

Or is it more like 'waving at Willy'?

[rutan around]

Maybe it isn't the standard of the knucks, but the standard of the guy they have to avoid?;)If we apply logic to the above statement you're saying the military has trouble avoiding civilian traffic who are not trying to blow them out of the sky.

What happens when a ridgy didge enemy comes along with evil intent? Do they take a sickie that day?

Here's a tip cbradio:- Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

[Kharon]

I have a particular liking of the canine species, those with ethics, morals and dedication to what they perceive as 'their duty'. If you're lucky, you can watch a team of top flight dogs go to work; happy as Claggy in dust, rain, sleet and snow. They are a pack animal and allowing for the natural order of nature, cooperate to get a job done. Until one of them slips into his mates kennel, to 'borrow' a bone or a snooze of a favourite rug – then, there's a dust up. The normally benign 'mate-ship' literally goes to the dogs – for in matters territorial, even Mama's pet Pekinese will turn into a rabid, fighting dervish.

If we could only get them to see that sharing is simply an extension of the cooperation they utilise during working hours, the back yard would be a much more peaceful sort of place.

History demarks many serious 'dust-ups' of the human kind, directly attributable to territorial issues and access. How many court cases a year are heard because a fence has strayed 100 mm over a property line, or a tree extends over a garden – it's a big number. The problem is that once one side decides they have 'ownership' of a place, they will, like the honest dog, protect it; often to the death, particularly when 'both' parties feel righteously aggrieved.

This here, is not a use of airspace debate; it's become a matter of ownership and territorial rights. The military believe they own the airspace, the civvies also believe that commercial advantages, ultimately for the betterment of the country could be gained by unfettered access to that airspace.

Lets call the Willy sizing competition a bloodless draw and see if the military can allow a little more access and if the civvies can do with a little less than unrestricted. Shirley, men of good will and reason can see a way clear to avoiding unnecessary restriction of matters both of a military and commercial interest.

But then again, here's that bloody mongrel from next door, pissing on 'my' lawn; this time I'm going to thump him, good and proper. Watch this.

Toot toot...;)

[Sunfish]

The not the simplest explanation that The RAAF, like CASA, hate aviation conducted by private non RAAF folk and are bent on destroying it any way they can?

[sprocket check]

Kharon, your oratory skills are in fine form, as usual :D:D

[josephfeatherweight]

The not the simplest explanation that The RAAF, like CASA, hate aviation conducted by private non RAAF folk and are bent on destroying it any way they can?


What an absurd proposition. There are so many members of the RAAF with an invested interest in GA (not just pilots) and they have developed strong relationships in the GA community - certainly there's no one "bent on destroying it..." They don't influence GA significantly and probably don't give a hoot about us flying our bug smashers - but far from wanting to "destroy" us.

So much inflammatory crap on here - I try to resist responding but it gets on my nerves.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Sunfish, I invariably enjoy reading your commentary however following this statement The not the simplest explanation that The RAAF, like CASA, hate aviation conducted by private non RAAF folk and are bent on destroying it any way they can? I call BS!

Kharon, your oratory skills are in fine form, as usual Did you mean "literary"?

[TBM-Legend]

Oh how I loved sending a QF B747 up the light aircraft lane at Williamtown one busy day.."report at Nobby's 500ft, traffic is two southbound Cessnas just passing Port Steven's light!"

What a sight to see the "whale" slide up the beach and call abeam Willi...:)

We were flexible...

[rutan around]

Oh how I loved sending a QF B747 up the light aircraft lane

And I suppose if you were in charge of road traffic you'd love to send busses and semi-trailers down the designated bicycle lanes. Get a grip.

[junior.VH-LFA]

The not the simplest explanation that The RAAF, like CASA, hate aviation conducted by private non RAAF folk and are bent on destroying it any way they can?

Does that mean I should stop hiring C172's from the local aeroclub then? I mean, seeing as I hate private aviation and all now.

[Arm out the window]

Yes, goddamn civvies, I hate 'em all ... er, hang on, I am one now ... bugger!

[donpizmeov]

AirCheck | Australian Airspace & Flight Display (http://xcaustralia.org/aircheck/aircheck.html)


Thought I would check what all the whinging was about. Most of it is below 10000 feet, and most is active by NOTAM. The high stuff is off the coast. Doesn't seem to be the vast amounts of airspace referred to by some.


Flight Planning, Flight Planning Information, and Download Aviation Charts for Private Pilots at AeroPlanner.com (http://www.aeroplanner.com/tfr/)
Gives the USA. Didn't try and count all the NOTAMS of active airspace. But there is a lot. Think you dudes need to do some research.


The don.


Rutan, I am sure most of those military flyers make more money than you, so in fact they are paying more towards Defence in their higher taxes than you are. Your logic is very flawed. Get help.

[Howabout]

The implication in some posts is that Australia is 'unique.' That we need to grow up and conform to 'world's best practice' whatever the hell that is. Australia's 'greatest aviator' also pushes the same line and transparency of argument goes out the window because of what I regard as half-truths that are peddled at the altar of convenient argument.

From Leady, whose an otherwise nice bloke:

We continue to publish purported restricted military training areas outside Australia's continental limit, which have absolutely no legal standing, but it is the same arrogance as displayed by "username here" that is the basis of why we continue to do so.

The implication there 'Leady,' old fruit, is that we are the only ones that impose these restrictions on civil traffic offshore. I wouldn't mind if your argument was watertight, but it ain't.

Check out Canadian AIP and associated charts for over-water airspace outside the territorial limit off its east coast. It's Class F with the addendum that 'clearance is required.'

Similarly with NZ. In 2004, NZ CAA published an 'Airspace Handbook' that allowed free-for-all movement through offshore MOAs promulgated for military activity. That's the ideal world according to the zealots.

In 2008, the NZ CAA, a civil agency BTW, republished the Handbook with the addendum on offshore MOAs that 'clearance is required.' Why? Because they realised that unfettered access in amongst military activity was just plain dumb.

I don't mind the zealotry as regards airspace. But I would like to see fact as opposed to what I regard as half-truths in support of arguments that lend the impression that Australia is 'unique' when it comes to airspace management.

Half-truths have been the weapons of convenience for the zealots during, and since, that disaster called NAS.

Tootle-Pip!

[rutan around]

I am sure most of those military flyers make more money than you,That could well be true but you are just on a fishing expedition and really have NFI.

At least I have paid for my own planes.:D

Unfortunately only one has oxygen so I don't always have the option to fly in the flight levels. So whenever some seat polishing squadron leader has a random neuron firing that a bit of jolly old flying would be nice today what? the rest of us are inconvenienced until such time he gets around to reopening what he regards as his airspace.

The suggestion that the military pay through their taxes for the cost of the military is breathtakingly stupid. All their pay comes from taxpayers to start with. A fraction of their pay goes back to the Government and some of it funds the military.

Howabout. Don't sign off Tootle-Pip. It's confusing and besides Leadie has copyright.:E

[Howabout]

OK Rutan,

I made two errors: I confused 'whose' with 'who's' and pinched Leady's sign-off; but the last one was just an affectionate stir.:)

[rutan around]

Howabout don't fret. Half the posters hear wouldn't no their was a spelling mistake.:\

[junior.VH-LFA]

And QF drivers pay for their aircraft also I assume? When I buy my own aircraft does that mean I have to hate the RAAF also?

Your hits at military aviation in this country are becoming increasingly more broad and desperate, you are perfectly entitled to your opinions about airspace management, I don't even really disagree with you in your overall view, but the general snarky remarks about the RAAF and its professionalism from an operators perspective are poor at best.

There is no such thing as a SQNLDR deciding to just go for a jolly because they feel like it in the modern Air Force. If someone is going flying, its for a specific reason, to meet a specific objective and they are current aircrew. There are plenty of FCI's at the SQNLDR level that can do things with an aircraft that are quite impressive, your insinuation that they are just going for joyrides is a bit far off of the mark to say the least. There are also quite a few SQNLDR's currently dropping bombs on ISIL in the Middle East.

Considering the type of flying that the Air Force does, and how often they do it, they don't seem to (touch wood) put a lot of smoking wrecks in the ground, whether a Flying Officer or a Wing Commander is at the helm.

[onehitwonder]

Say no more

[LeadSled]

Howabout,

It's nothing to do with zealots, and everything to do with international law, period.

All the cases you mention of purported restricted airspace in international airspace have no legal standing, notwithstanding claims otherwise in any national publications.

The US is a very good example, they are one of the few countries that assiduously comply with the law. Thus, all US mil. practice areas outside the 12 mile limit are designated Warning areas, in accord with ICAO recommendations.

The reference to "Class F" and "clearance required " are mutually contradictory, it is either Class F or it is a class of airspace (E IFR or D and up, all cats. of flight) where a clearance is required, it cannot be both.

The fact remains that the volume of various kinds of mil. airspace in Australia is ridiculous and a major financial impost for no valid reason.

Tootle pip!!

PS: At least it was not as bad as when I started flying, where all airspace above Sydney, from about FL290, was R, H24, and we used to have to commence descent about a 100nm before desired, to remain below RAAF R airspace.

[Creampuff]

Leaddie:

Australia can make laws that have extra-territorial effect on and application to persons and things connected with Australia. That’s why it’s offence, under Australian law, for an Australian to engage a VH-registered aircraft in commercial operations in Swaziland, without an AOC issued under the Australian Civil Aviation Act.

It is true that Australia has no jurisdiction to purport to promulgate Romeo airspace binding on foreign aircraft in international airspace. But Australia does have jurisdiction to promulgate Romeo airspace binding on Australian aircraft in international airspace.

I could be wrong, though. Put your money where your mouth is: Jump into a VH-registered aircraft and fly around in an active Australian Romeo, 13 nms on the seaward side of the territorial sea baseline. Plenty off e.g. Nowra and Williamtown to choose from. Let us know how you go. :ok:

(However, I agree that “the volume of various kinds of mil. airspace in Australia is ridiculous”.)

[Howabout]

Sorry, Leady, but it has everything to do with zealotry.

Zealotry pushed half-truths during 11/11, the G-Airspace Trial, Airspace 2000, Son of Airspace 2000, and that basket-case NAS. In my opinion, the protagonists were less than truthful; however influence and profile reigned and politicians and bureaucrats alike were sucked in to the tune of untold millions.

There are only two legitimate avenues to address airspace change, and they go hand-in-hand. A proper risk-management analysis and, most importantly, a robust cost/benefit analysis. Neither was done in the aforementioned disasters. Influence and half-truths ruled the roost to the cost of the taxpayer. They were all pet projects pushed with flawed underlying assumptions that were ignored in the interests of ramming home change while influence was there with the ignorant.

And this goes to the nub of zealotry, Leady. The dumb in government were unduly influenced by half-truths that were shamelessly sold as fact.

The 'Australia is unique' line was constantly peddled by zealots to back change. No risk management and no cost/benefit. Just an airy-fairy argument that we are 'unique.'

But, as I have related, we are not. I'll reiterate - Canadian offshore Class F is also designated as D; and you need a clearance. NZ offshore MOAs now require a clearance and have for the last eight years.

Your argument that it's 'illegal' is peripheral to the fact that other sovereign nations pursue similar procedures. Which is way, way counter to the accusations of 'uniqueness' in Australia. This was the fundamental, fundamental justification for airspace change in Australia and it was just so much tripe!

Arguments based on fact I have no issue with. Arguments based on BS, with a concomitant loss off taxpayer dollars, have seen an ongoing, divisive series of exercises that we don't need to revisit.

You want change Leady? Risk management and cost/benefit and I'll back you to the hilt if the numbers come out on the positive side of the ledger! 'We are unique' just doesn't wash.

[Creampuff]

I agree entirely with the strategic point that not much done about aviation in Australia is based on proper risk and cost/benefit analyses. As I've said many times before, most of the decisions about aviation regulation in Australia appear to be about politics, thinly veiled as safety.

So, what would we anticipate an objective risk and cost/benefit analysis of the ADF's airspace requirements in Australia to produce, and why?

If all that ADF-related Romeo airspace that's vastly larger compared with other Western countries with more aircraft and grumpier terrain is justifiable on a risk and cost/benefit basis, let's see the analyses. Us nobodies will do our best to understand them.

[Howabout]

Sorry Creamy, you are a bright bloke - far smarter than me.

However, the core argument goes to the justification for change.

It's not incumbent on the military to justify what exists. It's incumbent on the protagonists for 'reform' to back change based on solid argument - risk analysis and cost/benefit.

Just stating that there's too much R in comparison to other places is nothing more than opinion. And 'opinion' gave us the 'airspace reform' disasters that go back years.

By all means, push for change, but back it up with solid analysis and present that analysis in support of your 'opinion.'

Opinion alone just doesn't cut it - facts-based risk analysis and cost/benefit are required if we are going to have change that can be justified and accepted. Nothing more, nothing less.

Opinion has been the mother of strife as regards airspace management in this country.

[rutan around]

Opinion has been the mother of strife as regards airspace management in this country. I think if you substitute the word OPINION with the word ARROGANCE your statement would be pretty right.

It's not just in aviation we have this problem.

Car drivers hate bike riders and think the bike riders should stay off 'their' roads.

Truck and bus drivers want the road to themselves and hate car drivers as well as bikes.

The filthy rich hate the fact that they can't own the beach in front of their place and must suffer the indignity of watching the plebs play on 'their' beach.

The answer lies in both proper data and consideration for others.

[thorn bird]

Hear hear, Rutan

[Creampuff]

Again, I agree with the paucity of facts-based risk analysis and cost/benefit in these decisions. I'd also suggest that the bane of airspace reform, in particular, is abysmally poor industry education and implementation management.

I'd also suggest that there are cultural differences between e.g. the USA and Australia. In the USA, the citizens allow the government to use their land and taxes for e.g. military purposes to benefit the citizens. In Australia, the citizens are subjects of the Crown and exist to be taxed and governed for the benefit of the Crown (or, increasingly, the mates of governments). Hence, it is, as you say, incumbent on humble citizens in Australia to petition governments to condescend to share or give up some of 'the government's' airspace.

On the facts/opinion issue, it seems to me that the volumes of airspace, the number of movements, the topography and climate at various places are facts. It seems to me that valid inferences may be drawn from comparisons of those facts. But maybe that's just my opinion. :ok:

[Howabout]

Creamy, all pretty valid points IMHO. I do not disagree with your contention that there is 'too much.' But that is perception on my part - opinion, if you will.

And without wishing to belabor the point, reliance on personal perceptions have led to the serial train smashes. It's like bloody Groundhog Day.

Even simple stuff, like mandatory/advisory calls in a CTAF, where the 'professionals' were pitted against the 'amateurs,' generated the same angst. And, before anyone takes offence with those terms, it's just a simple delineation to truncate the argument.

I remember going to an OAR sponsored meeting a few years back when CTAF procedures were the main agenda item - Leady was there. There were the protagonists for the pure US model and those that wouldn't accept anything less than mandatory calls. Anyone with a modicum of experience would have realised that 'never the twain shall meet.'

However, a young and well-intentioned lady announced at the beginning of proceedings that 'ladies and gentlemen, we are here to reach consensus.' No disrespect to her, but I damned near chucked because consensus was a pipe-dream.

On this most simple of issues what was required was facts-based analysis presented to the throng along with a decision from the Regulator - not a gabfest. It was a total waste of time and we've ended up with a hybrid that's neither fowl nor fish.

For the record, and also being military at the time, my personal opinion favored the pure US model and I had no axe to grind either way. What was required was facts-based argument, no fears and no favors, and a decision based on rational analysis and presented to the meeting. 'Stow the objections, this is the way we are going and the numbers support our decision.'

Had that been done, I'm pretty sure we'd be living with a better CTAF system and the angst would have died eons ago.

But, but, that's just my opinion. :ok:

[Jabawocky]

Not sure if you guys have thrashed this out already, but look at the RWY11 notes. http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s14-h106.pdf

Not available when OK is active? :ugh: FFS that is the prevailing wind and during office hours.

I know Oakey has a bit of a tight squeeze now that they have less real estate, but this is BULL****.

I was a little sympathetic for the OK folk before, and I understand the limiting of VFR wander through traffic as well as the limiting IFR routes, but to kill off an IFR approach that is the vast majority of use. :=

The Toowoomba council, aeroclub and the local FBO, and groggy should refuse all cooperation in response. They might get the message.

How will they deal with a crappy day and blustery conditions when a/c start using the words, sorry require RNAV RWY 11.

Please tell me I have missed something and gone off half cocked.

[Tankengine]

Can anyone give me a satisfactory reason why a helicopter training base needs ANY airspace above 1000'?:E

[red_dirt]

You wanna rethink that question?

[Delta_Foxtrot]

Jaba, the restriction did not come from OK. Try a four letter acronym starting with "C".

[Tankengine]

No, want to try and answer it?:rolleyes:

I have been told by an Oakey officer why they are vital to separate civilian IFR traffic, he was stumped when I asked why they don't need separating after 4 pm on Friday until Monday morning.:E

They are so paranoid about gliders infringing during contests that they patrol the railway line! (Boundary)
Why so scared of a few UFOs in their space when they are training for war zones?:eek:

I have flown through MOAs in the US without any issues, no clearance required.:ok:

[red_dirt]

Well your "officer friend" needs to head out there more often and look around more.

The Tower goes de-active on Friday afternoon and generally there will not be a single military helicopter movement there until Monday morning. If there is the off chance that there is a public demo or the like on a weekend then they take off and land while the area is a CTAF.

Nobody there patrols the railway line... especially on weekends when there is only around 20 people on the the base working. Turkey Hill, the radar site gets patrolled by road by security but that's about it.

Standard clearance out of Oakey is depart and climb to 2500 or 3500.

Guys you all need to calm down a bit... When the tower is active, they dont let people in... when its outside tower hours the skies are full of civil aircraft.

[Jabawocky]

D.F.
Jaba, the restriction did not come from OK. Try a four letter acronym starting with "C".

I just had it explained. Seems the Army are not the ones who are behind it. Hopefully a solution soon.

[Arm out the window]

Can anyone give me a satisfactory reason why a helicopter training base needs ANY airspace above 1000'?

Hypoxia training!

[Tankengine]

Red dirt, your second and third paragraph shows you did not understand my post. Your last just makes me ask again, why?:hmm:

[alphacentauri]

Maybe I can add some insight.

The new approaches at TWB are not designed or owned by AsA. As they are 'new' designs they must be completely MOS173 compliant. The rules MOS173 basically state that procedures have to be either a)completely within or b)completely outside controlled/restricted airspace....clearly on RWY11 this is not possible without a significant offset (read operationally useless) The only way the procedure was allowed by CASA was with that restriction. (My opinion is who ever wrote the MOS, had no idea what they were doing....it's just not practical)

The previous versions were published pre introduction of MOS173. Rest assured AsA had also been informed that if our procedure stays it would also require that restriction.

The restriction can only be lifted by an exemption and that is going to require a complex safety case. The safety mitigator would normally be that the procedure conflicts are within OK airspace and can be monitored/controlled by them. In this instance OK have stated they are not prepared to do this any longer.

I will defend OK here. They have been very accommodating for a long time. They got told they would lose their airspace to accommodate Wellcamp. With the significant increase in traffic that Wellcamp will bring they were well within their rights to request that mil and civ ops be segregated. With 3 airports only 8nm from each othe,r and pointed at each othe,r someone was going to lose out. It was always going to be Toowoomba. John Wagner can say what he likes now, but the original concept assumed TWB would be closed.

The result is probably one of the most complex pieces of airspace in that region anyway...it was already complex enough.

I wouldn't go blaming Defence too much for the outcome. The outcome has more to do with a progressive business man doing battle with a set of outdated rules and a regulator that doesn't understand their intent nor can give guidance on better solutions.

[Delta_Foxtrot]

alphacentauri,

Concur.

[Jabawocky]

A.C.

Thanks, and that is most of what was explained to me this evening by a local legend :ok:

Seems ADF have been very accommodating especially for local and RFDS after some blunders occurred.

I also note some solutions are in the near term, at ones very kind expense.

I hope it gets sorted before the winter low ceilings arrive.

[Creampuff]

My opinion is who ever wrote the MOS, had no idea what they were doing....C'mon.

This is the bestest, harmonisedest, plain Englishest regulatory package ever built. :D

[thorn bird]

Creamie, sometimes you just crack me up.:E you cynical old ba..ard you!

"My opinion is who ever wrote the MOS, had no idea what they were doing...."

Of course they didn't !!! Have a brows through the part 61 MOS, amateurish drivel written by some ex Aeroclub Walla, its almost a gross insult to any professional pilot.

Our Pollies and the general public imagine there is a very high level of competence within CAsA, well after all they are the "Regulator".

I agree there are some very experienced, very competent people in CAsA, as Kharon is wont to say, White Hats.

But by and large the majority of front line and management people are ex RAAF failures or industry rejects, and therein lies the rub, and the minister needs to wake up.

He's being manipulated by very experienced "Sir Humphries".

This is not a game where the winner takes all.

The very survival of an industry that employs people, generates income that adds to the national GDP is at stake.

The alternative is a complete collapse and far more costly subsidization of essential services and the political flack from a whole heap of people who can no longer enjoy their passion.

[2b2]

Toowoomba hopes to attract a new wave of high-flying international students to the Darling Downs with the establishment of a new aviation training centre at Wellcamp.
A partnership between the Airline Academy of Australia, the University of Southern Queensland and the newly built Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport to build the Wellcamp Aviation Education Precinct will be announced on Friday.

Aviation training centre to open at Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport (http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/aviation-training-centre-to-open-at-brisbane-west-wellcamp-airport-20141204-120h0q.html)

[thorn bird]

Don't suppose there's any chance of the Wellcamp people building Badgeries Creek?

It would probably take them oh, about a couple of years to complete?.

Save the taxpayer billions, and provide some real competition for Mascot.

Instead of handing McBank another billion a year monopoly that all gets spirited to the Bahamas, tax free.

[2b2]

they've thought of that already

Toowoomba airport builders eye Badgerys Creek (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/aviation/toowoomba-airport-builders-eye-badgerys-creek-20141204-120bxp.html)

[LeadSled]

Creamie,
Re. the vast areas of R airspace outside Australia's territorial limits, certainly Australia can make "rules" that govern Australian aircraft, provided they are not inconsistent with "local" rules.

Whether Australia can limit Australian aircraft operations in a class of airspace that has no legal validity, and where ICAO rules (not Australian) apply, is an interesting consideration.

But that is not the point. R airspace outside Australia's territorial limits has no legal validity, and is contrary to treaties, to which Australia is a signatory. Such airspace, in conformity with treaty obligations, should be promulgated as W, Warning.

A-Gs know this, DoD know this, Infrastructure knows this, many years ago, high level agreement was reached to conform with ICAO on this matter, but the "decision" got lost in the bureaucracy. Australia continues to thumb it nose at these treaties.

Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

So when are you going to jump into a VH-registered aircraft and tootle around without a clearance in an active Romeo, 13nms on the seaward side of the territorial sea baseline?

Ultimately, that's the only way to test your theory. :ok:

I keep telling you: Although Australia cannot regulate foreign aircraft in international airspace, Australia can regulate Australian aircraft anywhere in the universe, and that includes more than 12nms on the seaward side of the territorial sea baseline. But I could be wrong...

[LeadSled]

But I could be wrong...

Creamie,
Yes, you could be, but nobody is going to the High Court to find out.

For my part, I have an open mind (but it is not open at both ends) as to the enforceability of airspace "restrictions" that have no legal validity, regardless of the state of registration of the aircraft.

You may recall, almost 20 years ago, now, an N-registered Navaho was deliberately flown just outside the Australian territorial limits off Williamtown, when various R were notamed as active, despite much huffing and puffing, no action was ever taken, because there was no cause of action.

Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

Australia can't take action against an N-registered for things done outside Australian territory.

Australia can take action against a VH-registered aircraft for things done anywhere.

You know this.

That's why you won't put a VH-registered aircraft where your mouth is. :=

[Howabout]

Precisely, Creamy; nothing to add.

[gerry111]

LeadSled,


I'd be guessing that the N-registered Navaho, to which you refer, perhaps was owned and operated by a person whose initials are B.M.? Is that correct?


(If so, I've had a couple of very enjoyable passenger flights in it. That was prior to the AOPA Moree AGM.)


You are a very well admired, liked and respected GA and retired airline B744 Captain.


So why do you (and Dick Smith) continue to take on people, such as Creampuff, who clearly have substantially more knowledge of Australian aviation law than you guys sure have?


Is it some misguided ego thingy or what?

[LeadSled]

Australia can take action against a VH-registered aircraft for things done anywhere.Creamie,
You know that is not strictly legally correct, once an Australian aircraft is outside Australia's territorial limits.

----- such as Creampuff, who clearly have substantially more knowledge of Australian aviation law than you guys sure have?

Gerry 111,
Creampuff and I have known each other for a long time, whilst I respect his legal (and other) opinions, I do not always agree, and he is not always right. As to the B.M mentioned, he is a man of brilliant intellect, with substantial legal studies behind him, not to mention many years of experience in the field of contentious air law, it would be a brave man, lawyer or not, who took him on head to head.

As to why I don't put my views to a practical test as suggested, the answer is pragmatic. I simply do not have the funds to fight such a case through to the High Court, where it would at least get to leave to appeal.

I don't know what the starting price would be for the series of actions, but I should imagine something like $1.5M would barely cover it.

As to my views on airspace management, I have pretty wide experience, on a variety of aircraft, I know from personal experience just how third grade the Australian system is in practice, measured not just by the inefficient traffic handling, but the rather high rate of loss of separation incidents.

I simply do not buy the excuse that there are "cultural" differences in Australia that preclude fully ICAO compliant airspace management, as per US, Canada or western Europe, "working" in Australia.

Indeed, ever Australian pilot I have ever met, and who has actually done some GA flying in US, marvel at how simple, straightforward and pleasurable it is.

And a world where "clearance not available, remain clear of controlled airspace" is unheard of. And anybody who tells you it is only because of radar coverage doesn't know what they are talking about.

Our RAAF ATC could really learn something from the RAF, whose approach to civil traffic is exemplary, including the volume of R or P airspace, compared to the "Australian experience".

Tootle pip!!

PS: Remember recently, how fast CASA was to enforce the effect of Australia's territorial limits on AOC holders, demanding "international" AOCs for anybody operating outside the 12 mile limit, including to some islands in the Torres Straight, and some direct tracking, but conveniently ignoring SID/STAR routes that are outside said 12 miles.

[Creampuff]

Australia can take action against a VH-registered aircraft for things done anywhere.You know that is not strictly legally correct, once an Australian aircraft is outside Australia's territorial limits.It is strictly legally correct. Full stop.

BTW: I (still) agree that the vast volumes of airspace locked up for ADF activities are unnecessarily large.

[LeadSled]

It is strictly legally correct. Full stop.

Two examples you might like to comment on:

(1) Australian aircraft operating in international airspace, if there is any consistency between Australian rules and ICAO, which takes precedence?
(2) A aircraft operating within another state, whether or not it is an ICAO signatory state, where there is an inconsistency in the rules, which takes precedence?

An example of (1) would be separation standard, which in many areas widely vary from Australian separation standards.

Another would be the rules for a visual approach, the Australian "rules" promulgated by AIP may be very different in other countries.

IFR minima vary greatly from Australia, as does their application. This can get to be a very big deal, operationally, when negotiating the terms of an Operating Specification with FAA or elsewhere.

An example of (2) would involve insurance regulations that vary from country to country, you better comply, regardless of Australian "rules" or lack thereof.

It is not simply a matter of complying with which ever rules is the most restrictive, Australia or wherever you happen to be, and I believe the "the law" says you can operate to the rules of the state where you are.

Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

(1) Australian aircraft operating in international airspace, if there is any consistency between Australian rules and ICAO, which takes precedence?The Australian rules.

But it’s a false dichotomy.

International Conventions, like the Chicago Convention (happy birthday) bind countries, not people.

Laws bind people.

The laws that bind the operation of an aircraft in international airspace are those of the country of the aircraft’s nationality. (That’s why you cannot lawfully tootle around in a VH-registered aircraft in an active Romeo declared by Australia, 13nms on the seaward side of the territorial sea baseline….)(2) A aircraft operating within another state, whether or not it is an ICAO signatory state, where there is an inconsistency in the rules, which takes precedence?Neither. You comply with both, or you’re in trouble.

However, the examples you provided are of differences, not inconsistencies. For rules to be inconsistent, it has to be impossible to comply with both simultaneously. Australian law can provide that when an Australian aircraft is in Roman airspace, do what the Romans do…

[thorn bird]

All of which says, if you can afford it, just to be on the safe side, if you want to go stooging about beyond 11NM 5281 ft off our coast, register your aircraft in a sane country, like NZ, then our world famous 1st class, admired across the universe regulator, that other regulators beat a path to our door begging to adopt our regulations, can go stick it up their nose!!..

Oh... okay creamie, sorry.... rush of blood to the head, I forgot about Reg 222 didn't I?

You know I faced this conundrum many years ago. Some guy had ditched in Bass straight with a Folker circling above, powerless to do much except plead.

I was on the ground in Launceston about twenty minutes away. I had a raft and someone to toss it out.

Trouble was it was the only Navajo in our fleet without a FM supplement for door off operation.

The powers that be flatly refused to sanction the drop without the supplement.

I very nearly just went and did it anyway, but the threats prevailed.

Whether it would have made any difference I have no idea, but I have spent many years filled with guilt that I didn't.

This is the face of prescriptive bull**** we call regulation, people die and the assholes that cause or create it it get off blameless.

Think of the Longreach angel, who, in the dead of night, went and picked up a critically ill pregnant woman when the RFDS was committed elsewhere.

Saved her's and her unborn child's life.

A hero in anyone's language, but it had to be a private operation. All good except...

Did that stop the dirt bags in CAsA from destroying his business and his life on a technicality that any sane, honorable person would have chosen to ignore.

His crime??..he reluctantly accepted money from the woman's husband to cover the cost of his fuel and a private operation suddenly became commercial. SHOCK>>>HORROR>>>GASP>>>>A BREACH...much like the pregnancy.

Prescriptive regulation!!..

I often pray that the assh..les that did that have trouble sleeping at night, but somehow I doubt it, people like that have no conscience. If I was religious I'd hope that one day they would have to face their maker, rumor has it there's a clique of religious nutters embedded in CAsA, but from what I've seen of religious nutters is it's always about the money.

So what does a private pilot do?

When he owns the only 172 for a thousand miles, there's a boat floundering 12 and a 1/2 miles off the coast, people are in danger of drowning and the new SAR jets are hours away, even if they could drop a raft.

Sorry guys afraid you'll just have to drown, cos CAsA says I cant go beyond 12 miles.

Prescriptive regulation??

Rapacious, completely untrustworthy, BIG R regulator looking for notches on their gun???

Declare a mercy flight??..forget it, not without consent signed by the DAS and witnessed by the devil himself, because you cannot in any way shape or form trust CAsA. You have to accept that today, all our aviation pioneers from yesteryear would be in Jail, or grounded as not fit and proper persons.

[Howabout]

Here we go again Leady.

I simply do not buy the excuse that there are "cultural" differences in Australia that preclude fully ICAO compliant airspace management, as per US, Canada or western Europe, "working" in Australia.

Jeezus, just like God's gift to aviation you continue to ignore the inconvenient truths. And, as I've said before, this has buggered rational debate - zealotry that chooses to ignore fact to push a barrow.

Once again, and once again, Leady, and in reference to your quote, check out Canadian AIP and associated charts. There's Class F out there off the NE coast, and outside the 12 nm limit. It's designated D and Class F, with the rider that 'clearance is required.'

I have no issues with passion when it comes to airspace - I'm all for it. My beef is with those that peddle fiction as fact in support of their agendas.

You also conveniently ignored my previous reference to NZ offshore MOAs requiring clearance.

[gerry111]

Howabout wrote:

"My beef is with those that peddle fiction as fact in support of their agendas."

:D:D:D:D:D:D

[Heady1977]

... why they are vital to separate civilian IFR traffic, he was stumped when I asked why they don't need separating after 4 pm on Friday until Monday morning.

They are so paranoid about gliders infringing during contests...

Why so scared of a few UFOs in their space when they are training for war zones?
...
I had the privilege of flying gliders in that part of the world a year or so ago. At the time I could not understand why the shear size of the restricted zone around Oakey during the week especially since it disappeared during the Christmas holiday season.

I fly gliders in the SW area of England which has maybe some of the most dense air traffic anywhere in England, maybe even Europe with Southampton zone, London TMA, Gatwick TMA, Farnborough zone, Odiham MATZ, Bension MATZ, etc...
BBC News - Why air traffic control still needs the human touch (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21195765)

It is quite common to be thermalling or running cloud streets and seeing these below you in the weeds:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/92107259@N03/14001886376/
Or something I will never forget is being orbited by one of these at 6000':
_B6O3106.jpg Photo by 2012images | Photobucket (http://s29.photobucket.com/user/2012images/media/folio/_B6O3106.jpg.html)
Or climbing with a couple of these:
http://www.skylarkparagliding.co.uk/images/skylark_images/group_flying_caburn.jpg

So if all these airspace users can coexist reasonably happily in a space smaller than the Oakey - Toowoomba area. I could not see how or why there was such a need for the huge protected airspace area around Oakey?

Also in the UK - military airfields can be alternative landing places. I have landed at RAF Lyneham before. So I was again surprised when I was told Oakey was totally out of bounds.

I will admit that I'm not an airspace expert - but it sure seemed overkill at the time.

[LeadSled]

Once again, and once again, Leady, and in reference to your quote, check out Canadian AIP and associated charts. There's Class F out there off the NE coast, and outside the 12 nm limit. It's designated D and Class F, with the rider that 'clearance is required.'My principal reference was to Class F, not D, if I have not worded my message adequately clearly, I apologize. A "clearance" in Class F, for all aircraft, means one of two things, either it is not Class F, or somebody is not understanding the definition of Class F. Civil airspace designations are not appropriate for military training operations, where R, P or W is appropriate. There is no issue about a state declaring civil airspace designations in international airspace, over which it has jurisdiction, but mil. airspace is a different issue.

Again, my primary remarks were about Australian R beyond the 12 mile limit, the proper designation for an MOA beyond the 12 mile limit is a Warning Area, W.

The US treatment of such airspace is the best example I know, of a country complying precisely with the relevant treaties.

As those of you who are ex-military may or may not know, the US Navy, from time to time, conducts air exercises in airspace that Australia declares as R, but never requests any kind of "permission" from Australia. They very politely advise of their intentions, but they do not "request a clearance" The legal framework is exactly the same as US naval operations in the South China Sea, claimed as territorial waters by RP China. The US Navy does not ask Chinese permission to sail ( or fly) these waters, outside the RP China 12 mile limit.

Fortunately, aviation is not a democracy, if a majority think something that is wrong, is right, they are still wrong, the majority does not rule in this case.

Jeezus, just like God's gift to aviation you continue to ignore the inconvenient truths.
An just what inconvenient truths would they be, pray tell??

You also conveniently ignored my previous reference to NZ offshore MOAs requiring clearance. Same comment applies, the airspace should be designated as W. The demand for a "clearance" has no legal validity. Maybe the NZ cousins are taking a leaf out of the Australian bureaucratic lexicon, fortunately something that they do not generally do in aviation matters. Just what airforce has NZ got, that it needs extensive MOAs offshore, I wonder.

And, as I've said before, this has buggered rational debate - zealotry that chooses to ignore fact to push a barrow.We should start with the facts, and the facts are, in this case, and it is quite clear legally, R and P areas outside the 12 mile limit ( it can be still 3 miles in some areas of the world - depending on who has signed -- or not -- which treaty) has no legal validity.

Amazing, "pushing a barrow" for efficient airspace usage, proper risk assessment and management of Australia airspace for the benefit of all, is somehow "zealotry.

What am I supposed to accept, that Australia continues to blunder along (been reading any Senate Hansard recently??) with significant segments of the aviation population seriously disadvantaged as a result ----- because this is the "Australian way".

If the debate is around fictional straw men, it is an irrational debate, far too much "discussion" about airspace matters in Australia is irrational, because rational risk management is usually ignored, in favour of "no change" because "that's what we have always done" and the continued claims that, because of some kind of "cultural differences" to UK, western Europe, US, Canada, NZ etc., what "works" -- ie ICAO compliance in spirit, not by notifications of differences) "won't work here".

Tootle pip!!

International Conventions, like the Chicago Convention (happy birthday) bind countries, not people.
Laws bind people.Creamie,
Would you like to comment on how the Commonwealth makes laws for aviation, given that aviation is not mentioned in the constitution, the relevance of the Commonwealth's treaty making powers, and just what is the Commonwealth's power to establish such as CASA, as a result of such treaties, and not a direct power under the constitution.

[CaptainMidnight]

Excuse my ignorance, but where in ICAO SARPs are "Warning" area defined and the usage described?

I recall definitions and usage of PR&D areas (DOC4444 I think) but don't recall seeing anything about Warning areas, MOAs etc.

[Creampuff]

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make by making pointless points, Leaddie.

My view is that the constitution is invalid and that the Commonwealth of Australia doesn’t exist. I’d run a case in front of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but I can’t afford it.

So, in the interim, I’m going to tell everyone to run their lives on the basis that the Commonwealth of Australia doesn’t exist, that no law purportedly made by the Commonwealth of Australia is valid and that no decision purportedly made by the High Court of Australia is binding. Helpful, yes?

[Howabout]

Leaddie, for all his wonderful attributes and passion, can't abide losing an argument, and he's lost this one.

My point, going way way back, is that we in Australia have been portrayed as troglodytes by the zealots.

Along with his fellow zealots, IMHO, Leaddie (Airspce 2000, NAS and related embuggerances - the list is too long) have cost this country millions of taxpayer dollars for no gain based on false argument.

If one must craft an argument, any argument, that argument rests on what are referred to as 'underlying assumptions.' This is Philosophy 101.

Put it this way - you either have fact, or an argument that's based on credible assumptions. If the underlying assumptions to your argument are flawed, then your argument crashes and burns.

The underlying assumption, that we are 'unique,' has been the basis of the zealots' argument for God knows how long.

I won't go through the stuff again that proves that assumption false. But Leady and the zealots get an F for using that underlying assumption to support an argument that doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[LeadSled]

The underlying assumption, that we are 'unique,' has been the basis of the zealots' argument for God knows how long.

I won't go through the stuff again that proves that assumption false. But Leady and the zealots get an F for using that underlying assumption to support an argument that doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Howabout,

You have certainly got the above back to front.

Underlying the position of us zealots is that there is nothing unique about Australian aviation or those involved in it to justify the argument that "cultural differences" dictate that what works in the rest of the world (or most of Australian industry, for that matter) will not work in Australian aviation.

Sadly, this is not limited to airspace matters. I, for one, do not accept the proposition that participants in Australian aviation (both regulator and regulated) are not sufficiently mature to work to outcome (performance) based rules, but must have absolutely prescriptive rules with draconian penalties. This latter is the position put by CASA Legal Services branch, some time ago, when "explaining" why Government guidelines preferring outcome/performance based regulation were not suitable for aviation regulation.

Back to airspace classification, most of Australian industry (and most aircraft design, certification and continuing airworthiness) works to risk management based standards, and I hope you accept that the basis of ICAO airspace classification is based on CNS/ATM service levels that ensure an acceptable separation assurance standard in any classification of airspace.

If you don't accept that basic proposition, we are in real trouble, and you do not understand or accept (or both) the basis of the ICAO airspace classification.

The real zealots here are those of you who refuse to accept that the rest of the world has something to offer, and whether it is matters CNS/ATM or many other areas of Australian aviation, in any valid comparison, Australia does not shine.

As Australia's rather poor air safety outcomes, particularly compared to US, illustrate.

It is the true zealots who maintain a position that Australian aviation is unique, and somehow different to the rest of the world, and have fought tooth and nail to maintain costly and inefficient system that, by definition, cannot produce the best safety outcomes, because they are not based on rational risk management.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Creamie,
You know the long history of disputation about the power of the Commonwealth to regulate Australian aviation, at least as well as I do, you well know that these powers stem from the Commonwealth's treaty making powers, and have absolutely nothing to do with the general validity of the Australian Constitution.