ATSB Concerned over Military Control Loss of Separation Events
CAF addressing SR but FF hmm..anyone's guess??
Although the Air Force Chief takes umbrage to certain inferences and methodology in the ATSB report he doesn't shirk the issue when it comes to the recommendation 'AR-2012-034-SR-014':
In fact the last paragraph of the Oz Aviation mag article would appear to show that the air force boffins are already onto it:
That is because they know that there is one (and only one) thing that the ATSB can trump them on and that is the issuance of a safety recommendation....whereas Fort Fumble on the other hand...well the jury is still out on that one???AR-2012-034-SR-015 
:
Whether we get an adequate response from FF we'll just have to wait and see
But there is no doubt that they now have to get on with it, within a set time frame...
Hmm...it also makes for an interesting scenario in regards to the Minister wanting to see if Richmond could possibly act as an interim civil airport while the 2nd Sydney Airport saga gets sorted...
...let's see Cost/Benefit & Safety Risk Analysis
Safety issue description
There was a disproportionate rate of loss of separation incidents which leads to a higher risk of collision in military terminal area airspace in general and all airspace around Darwin and Williamtown in particular. Furthermore, loss of separation incidents in military airspace more commonly involved contributing air traffic controller actions relative to equivalent civil airspace occurrences.
Response to safety issue by Department of Defence
The Department of Defence takes all losses of separation and losses of separation assurance seriously and investigates all incidents to identify causes and areas that can be improved in order to mitigate against further occurrences. To reduce the potential for separation occurrences, Defence are reviewing the implementation of the traffic management plans at Darwin, Townsville, and Williamtown to improve the effect of strategic separation techniques. These reviews will also be used to highlight any current airspace constructs that inhibit the controller’s ability to provide optimum separation assurance. Defence has also recently published an internal capability improvement plan that focuses on increasing experience levels at Defence air traffic locations. To improve our ability to respond to potential losses of separation, Defence has enhanced the School of Air Traffic Control simulator packages to provide greater exposure to compromised separation occurrences, with the trainee being assessed on their ability to apply compromised separation recovery. Defence has also added both theoretical and practical assessment to local training packages regarding scanning for possible losses of separation and applying compromised separation recovery techniques when required.
ATSB comment in response
The ATSB acknowledges the intended action by the Department of Defence, but considers that a broader review of Defence ATC processes and risk controls should be undertaken, including analysis of ATS related occurrence data, training, staffing and ATS infrastructure to ensure the reasons for the disproportionate risk of loss of separation incidents, and the relative higher level of controller actions contributing to these occurrences, are well understood and any additional appropriate action can be taken to minimise future risk. As such, the ATSB is issuing the following recommendation.
Recommendation
Action organisation:Department of DefenceAction number:AR-2012-034-SR-014Date:18 October 2013Action status:Released
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that the Department of Defence undertake a review of all processes and risk controls in place to reduce both the disproportionate risk of loss of separation incidents in military terminal area airspace in general and all airspace around Darwin and Williamtown in particular, and the relatively more common contributing air traffic controller actions.
There was a disproportionate rate of loss of separation incidents which leads to a higher risk of collision in military terminal area airspace in general and all airspace around Darwin and Williamtown in particular. Furthermore, loss of separation incidents in military airspace more commonly involved contributing air traffic controller actions relative to equivalent civil airspace occurrences.
Response to safety issue by Department of Defence
The Department of Defence takes all losses of separation and losses of separation assurance seriously and investigates all incidents to identify causes and areas that can be improved in order to mitigate against further occurrences. To reduce the potential for separation occurrences, Defence are reviewing the implementation of the traffic management plans at Darwin, Townsville, and Williamtown to improve the effect of strategic separation techniques. These reviews will also be used to highlight any current airspace constructs that inhibit the controller’s ability to provide optimum separation assurance. Defence has also recently published an internal capability improvement plan that focuses on increasing experience levels at Defence air traffic locations. To improve our ability to respond to potential losses of separation, Defence has enhanced the School of Air Traffic Control simulator packages to provide greater exposure to compromised separation occurrences, with the trainee being assessed on their ability to apply compromised separation recovery. Defence has also added both theoretical and practical assessment to local training packages regarding scanning for possible losses of separation and applying compromised separation recovery techniques when required.
ATSB comment in response
The ATSB acknowledges the intended action by the Department of Defence, but considers that a broader review of Defence ATC processes and risk controls should be undertaken, including analysis of ATS related occurrence data, training, staffing and ATS infrastructure to ensure the reasons for the disproportionate risk of loss of separation incidents, and the relative higher level of controller actions contributing to these occurrences, are well understood and any additional appropriate action can be taken to minimise future risk. As such, the ATSB is issuing the following recommendation.
Recommendation
Action organisation:Department of DefenceAction number:AR-2012-034-SR-014Date:18 October 2013Action status:Released
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that the Department of Defence undertake a review of all processes and risk controls in place to reduce both the disproportionate risk of loss of separation incidents in military terminal area airspace in general and all airspace around Darwin and Williamtown in particular, and the relatively more common contributing air traffic controller actions.
Notwithstanding the sharp defence of the RAAF’s performance, Brown has committed to a review of air traffic management plans and airspace design for RAAF Bases Darwin, Townsville and Williamtown. These three bases integrate a large number of military and civil aircraft types, and the review “will ensure military airspace is more error resistant”.
:
Safety issue description
Regulatory oversight processes for military air traffic services do not provide independent assessment and assurance as to the safety of civilian aircraft operations.
Response to safety issue by Civil Aviation Safety Authority
The Report appears to predicate on the assumption that CASA should have oversight authority in respect of military air traffic services when civil traffic is present. However, no evidence or arguments are presented to support this as the most appropriate option.
In the past, CASA has participated in Defence surveillance of military air traffic services. We have every intention of continuing to do so in the future. The Report fails to acknowledge that activity or the effective benefits it has produced.
The ATSB [draft] recommendation …. does not appear to take into consideration the benefit of joint work (such as that described in the bullet point above) that Airservices Australia (AsA), the Department of Defence (DoD) and CASA could undertake, without the need for CASA to assume formal oversight of DoD air traffic services.
ATSB comment in response
The ATSB acknowledges that CASA does have a standing invitation to attend operational evaluations of military ATC units conducted by the military ANSP's auditors, and have participated and plan to continue to participate in these. Such cooperation is important, but CASA remains limited in the level of influence it has over military ATS in relation to the safety of civilian aircraft using military airspace. This ATSB investigation concluded that civilian aircraft have a disproportionate rate of loss of separation incidents which leads to a higher risk of collision in military terminal area airspace in general and all airspace around Darwin and Williamtown in particular. As the function of CASA is that of maintaining, enhancing and promoting civil aviation safety in Australia, the results of this investigation suggest that CASA’s influence is not as effective as it could be when it comes to the safety of civilian aircraft, including passenger transport aircraft, in military controlled airspace and some level of independent assessment and assurance as to the safety of civil aircraft operations at DoD airports by CASA is warranted. As a result, the ATSB is issuing the following recommendation.
Recommendation
Action organisation:Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Action number:AR-2012-034-SR-015
Date:18 October 2013
Action status: Released
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority should review the results of this report and determine whether its current level of involvement with Military air traffic services (ATS) is sufficient to assure itself that the safety of civil aircraft operations while under Military ATS control is adequate.
Regulatory oversight processes for military air traffic services do not provide independent assessment and assurance as to the safety of civilian aircraft operations.
Response to safety issue by Civil Aviation Safety Authority
The Report appears to predicate on the assumption that CASA should have oversight authority in respect of military air traffic services when civil traffic is present. However, no evidence or arguments are presented to support this as the most appropriate option.
In the past, CASA has participated in Defence surveillance of military air traffic services. We have every intention of continuing to do so in the future. The Report fails to acknowledge that activity or the effective benefits it has produced.
The ATSB [draft] recommendation …. does not appear to take into consideration the benefit of joint work (such as that described in the bullet point above) that Airservices Australia (AsA), the Department of Defence (DoD) and CASA could undertake, without the need for CASA to assume formal oversight of DoD air traffic services.
ATSB comment in response
The ATSB acknowledges that CASA does have a standing invitation to attend operational evaluations of military ATC units conducted by the military ANSP's auditors, and have participated and plan to continue to participate in these. Such cooperation is important, but CASA remains limited in the level of influence it has over military ATS in relation to the safety of civilian aircraft using military airspace. This ATSB investigation concluded that civilian aircraft have a disproportionate rate of loss of separation incidents which leads to a higher risk of collision in military terminal area airspace in general and all airspace around Darwin and Williamtown in particular. As the function of CASA is that of maintaining, enhancing and promoting civil aviation safety in Australia, the results of this investigation suggest that CASA’s influence is not as effective as it could be when it comes to the safety of civilian aircraft, including passenger transport aircraft, in military controlled airspace and some level of independent assessment and assurance as to the safety of civil aircraft operations at DoD airports by CASA is warranted. As a result, the ATSB is issuing the following recommendation.
Recommendation
Action organisation:Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Action number:AR-2012-034-SR-015
Date:18 October 2013
Action status: Released
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority should review the results of this report and determine whether its current level of involvement with Military air traffic services (ATS) is sufficient to assure itself that the safety of civil aircraft operations while under Military ATS control is adequate.
But there is no doubt that they now have to get on with it, within a set time frame...Hmm...it also makes for an interesting scenario in regards to the Minister wanting to see if Richmond could possibly act as an interim civil airport while the 2nd Sydney Airport saga gets sorted...
...let's see Cost/Benefit & Safety Risk Analysis
To help you see the light Arko there were 2 other ATSB reports released that day blaming ASA for two LOS events.
More bad press for DoD!
SMH article:
Remind me where did Ms Staib reside before taking up her current posting??
Perhaps FF should be taking little sister agency the ATsB AR-2012-034-SR-015 just a tad more seriously than their initial response:
Maybe the DAS could offer his expert opinion and experience to help those RAAF boffins set up a proper FRMS...
Military air staff warn over safety
Military air traffic controllers fear the long hours they spend in front of consoles and having to carry out other jobs while they are supposed to be resting is increasing fatigue to a level that compromises safety.
After a report critical of the relatively high number of planes flying too close to each other in military-controlled air space, two former RAAF air traffic controllers have spoken out about the heavy workload and high staff turnover that have led to a lack of experienced personnel.
The controllers, who spoke on condition of anonymity, highlighted the limitations of the military's ageing air traffic control system, which on several occasions at Williamtown in Newcastle this year has had to be shut down and restarted.
In response to questions, the Defence Department confirmed the system was shut down for two days at Williamtown this year due to water entering communications cables after heavy rain. It said the RAAF stopped flying at the airport while the system was down and the airlines were informed. Military controllers manage both airline and RAAF aircraft at Williamtown.
''The civilian airliners are still getting a service, but to ignore the fact fatigue is impacting the level of safety, you can't. It is absolutely affecting safety,'' one controller said.
Defence confirmed that ''system degradation'' caused a reduction in air traffic services on two other occasions this year but insisted it had ''no impact'' on safety.
Fairfax Media has been told controllers have sometimes had to work another 10-hour shift just 10 hours after their last one ended.
Civilian controllers work eight-hour shifts, but spend two hours in front of consoles directing planes, compared with up to four hours in the RAAF.
''When it gets busy, that is very, very fatiguing,'' a controller said. ''The peaks and troughs of the traffic come with the air combat group flying. As soon as the military fly, it can get very challenging, particularly when you are mixing it with civilian flying because you have such vastly different aircraft performance.''
Airservices Australia monitors the bulk of the country's airspace, but the Defence Department oversees both civilian and military aircraft in airspace at Newcastle, Townsville and Darwin. Williamtown is shared by the RAAF and airlines including Virgin Australia, Jetstar and Regional Express.
On top of the time spent in front of consoles, RAAF controllers often have to carry out secondary duties during their official breaks.
''That would never happen on the civilian side of the street,'' the former controller said. ''Experience levels are quite low within the military ranks in general, even before adding to the fatigue issues and poor safety culture.''
The Defence Department said it has a shortage of controllers, but said flying schedules and rosters were ''synchronised to ensure aviation safety is maintained''.
Military air traffic controllers fear the long hours they spend in front of consoles and having to carry out other jobs while they are supposed to be resting is increasing fatigue to a level that compromises safety.
After a report critical of the relatively high number of planes flying too close to each other in military-controlled air space, two former RAAF air traffic controllers have spoken out about the heavy workload and high staff turnover that have led to a lack of experienced personnel.
The controllers, who spoke on condition of anonymity, highlighted the limitations of the military's ageing air traffic control system, which on several occasions at Williamtown in Newcastle this year has had to be shut down and restarted.
In response to questions, the Defence Department confirmed the system was shut down for two days at Williamtown this year due to water entering communications cables after heavy rain. It said the RAAF stopped flying at the airport while the system was down and the airlines were informed. Military controllers manage both airline and RAAF aircraft at Williamtown.
''The civilian airliners are still getting a service, but to ignore the fact fatigue is impacting the level of safety, you can't. It is absolutely affecting safety,'' one controller said.
Defence confirmed that ''system degradation'' caused a reduction in air traffic services on two other occasions this year but insisted it had ''no impact'' on safety.
Fairfax Media has been told controllers have sometimes had to work another 10-hour shift just 10 hours after their last one ended.
Civilian controllers work eight-hour shifts, but spend two hours in front of consoles directing planes, compared with up to four hours in the RAAF.
''When it gets busy, that is very, very fatiguing,'' a controller said. ''The peaks and troughs of the traffic come with the air combat group flying. As soon as the military fly, it can get very challenging, particularly when you are mixing it with civilian flying because you have such vastly different aircraft performance.''
Airservices Australia monitors the bulk of the country's airspace, but the Defence Department oversees both civilian and military aircraft in airspace at Newcastle, Townsville and Darwin. Williamtown is shared by the RAAF and airlines including Virgin Australia, Jetstar and Regional Express.
On top of the time spent in front of consoles, RAAF controllers often have to carry out secondary duties during their official breaks.
''That would never happen on the civilian side of the street,'' the former controller said. ''Experience levels are quite low within the military ranks in general, even before adding to the fatigue issues and poor safety culture.''
The Defence Department said it has a shortage of controllers, but said flying schedules and rosters were ''synchronised to ensure aviation safety is maintained''.
Perhaps FF should be taking little sister agency the ATsB AR-2012-034-SR-015 just a tad more seriously than their initial response
:
The Report appears to predicate on the assumption that CASA should have oversight authority in respect of military air traffic services when civil traffic is present. However, no evidence or arguments are presented to support this as the most appropriate option.
In the past, CASA has participated in Defence surveillance of military air traffic services. We have every intention of continuing to do so in the future. The Report fails to acknowledge that activity or the effective benefits it has produced.
The ATSB [draft] recommendation …. does not appear to take into consideration the benefit of joint work (such as that described in the bullet point above) that Airservices Australia (AsA), the Department of Defence (DoD) and CASA could undertake, without the need for CASA to assume formal oversight of DoD air traffic services.
In the past, CASA has participated in Defence surveillance of military air traffic services. We have every intention of continuing to do so in the future. The Report fails to acknowledge that activity or the effective benefits it has produced.
The ATSB [draft] recommendation …. does not appear to take into consideration the benefit of joint work (such as that described in the bullet point above) that Airservices Australia (AsA), the Department of Defence (DoD) and CASA could undertake, without the need for CASA to assume formal oversight of DoD air traffic services.
I find this fascinating. It looks as if no one knows how the AsA/Military charging works
In my day it was a type of barter system- totally unsatisfactory as AsA was supposed to run as business .
I would imagine nothing has changed as no real leadership decisions take place.
Come on. Someone must know how the charging works - why not let us know.
In my day it was a type of barter system- totally unsatisfactory as AsA was supposed to run as business .
I would imagine nothing has changed as no real leadership decisions take place.
Come on. Someone must know how the charging works - why not let us know.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charges
It's been a while since I researched it; however, charges at military bases used to work like this:
Like I said, this may have changed but not to my knowledge.
- Military do not charge any sort of enroute/ATS fee. I'm pretty sure that, under the Defence ACT, Defence is not permitted to charge for any 'service' it provides.
- Military owns and maintains all the infrastructure at its bases (Darwin, Townsville and Willy included) including RWYs, TWYs, NAVAIDs, lighting, RADARs etc.
- Military does not charge landing fees at its bases (as per above).
- Where there is a civil terminal at a military base (ie Darwin, Townsville and Willy) the local airport corporation collects a landing fee.
- In return for use of its infrastructure, military aircraft do not pay enroute fees to AsA, or landing fees at its own bases.
Like I said, this may have changed but not to my knowledge.
Blast from the past, A.R.R.T report & R10!
Who ever said history never repeats??
From the Dec 2007 Aviation Regulation Review Taskforce - Report :
Hmm...interesting when you look at the initial membership of the ARRT...
"Dr Allan Hawke was appointed as Taskforce Chair. Initial membership comprised Mr Byron, Mr Rob Graham (aviation industry consultant), Mr Jeff Boyd (CEO, Brindabella Airlines) and Mr Dick Smith. Mr David Cox (QANTAS Executive General Manager, Engineering) was subsequently appointed to the Taskforce in July 2007."
....is it any wonder Dick sent this spray to BB a year later: Dick Smith's legal letter to CASA 9 December 2008
Gotta love Dick's passion if nothing else!
From the Dec 2007 Aviation Regulation Review Taskforce - Report :
Military Airspace
The Taskforce discussed an issue raised by various sectors of the aviation industry in relation to military aerodromes and civilian access to military airspace. The airspace and air traffic control service provision for civilian aircraft at Williamtown air base near Newcastle being a case in point.
The Taskforce Members agreed that this had been an issue for quite some time and the risk profile of the aerodrome was increasing, noting the matter was complex with numerous significant stakeholders. The Taskforce agreed that the matter should be raised at very senior levels with the RAAF to ensure that a solution could be agreed and implemented as soon as possible.
Given the history of this matter a solution will only be forthcoming if the respective Ministers oversee and reach agreement on a new approach. As part of these discussions, the safety of the travelling public at aerodromes such as Williamtown needs to be considered as the first priority, without limiting Regular Public Transport growth or necessarily changing the status of the aerodrome.
Recommendation 10: The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government raise concerns about air traffic and airspace management at Williamtown and other military aerodromes with the Minister for Defence, to ensure that safe and reasonable practices are implemented to protect civilian aircraft and fare paying passengers in accordance with existing safety principles.
The Taskforce discussed an issue raised by various sectors of the aviation industry in relation to military aerodromes and civilian access to military airspace. The airspace and air traffic control service provision for civilian aircraft at Williamtown air base near Newcastle being a case in point.
The Taskforce Members agreed that this had been an issue for quite some time and the risk profile of the aerodrome was increasing, noting the matter was complex with numerous significant stakeholders. The Taskforce agreed that the matter should be raised at very senior levels with the RAAF to ensure that a solution could be agreed and implemented as soon as possible.
Given the history of this matter a solution will only be forthcoming if the respective Ministers oversee and reach agreement on a new approach. As part of these discussions, the safety of the travelling public at aerodromes such as Williamtown needs to be considered as the first priority, without limiting Regular Public Transport growth or necessarily changing the status of the aerodrome.
Recommendation 10: The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government raise concerns about air traffic and airspace management at Williamtown and other military aerodromes with the Minister for Defence, to ensure that safe and reasonable practices are implemented to protect civilian aircraft and fare paying passengers in accordance with existing safety principles.
"Dr Allan Hawke was appointed as Taskforce Chair. Initial membership comprised Mr Byron, Mr Rob Graham (aviation industry consultant), Mr Jeff Boyd (CEO, Brindabella Airlines) and Mr Dick Smith. Mr David Cox (QANTAS Executive General Manager, Engineering) was subsequently appointed to the Taskforce in July 2007."
....is it any wonder Dick sent this spray to BB a year later: Dick Smith's legal letter to CASA 9 December 2008
Gotta love Dick's passion if nothing else!
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 63
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if Military ATC's get crossover civilian experience at high density airports. I hear that Australian military ATC's are well respected overseas.
I flew in to YPDN 2 weeks ago as GA on a flight from Kunnunurra - the handling was fine except my flight notification got lost somewhere in between my lodging and the tower,and the poor ATC had enter it manually in between handling the other traffic. He apologised and stated the problem was at their end. Fortunately I made my call quite early ( which for light aircraft means about 50 NM) and there was plenty of time for him to manually re-enter the plan.
Interestingly , despite it being a radar environment, he wanted a manual ETA.
Nonetheless I have found Darwin tower very helpful on the several occasions i have contacted them about arrival and departure matters. Similarly with Williamtown, who were exemplary in allowing me to put down there once at very short notice in severely deteriorating weather.
Perhaps at YWLM the controllers be given a significantly greater radius to increase the lead time for their sequencing of higher speed military aircraft - but I'm no expert....
I flew in to YPDN 2 weeks ago as GA on a flight from Kunnunurra - the handling was fine except my flight notification got lost somewhere in between my lodging and the tower,and the poor ATC had enter it manually in between handling the other traffic. He apologised and stated the problem was at their end. Fortunately I made my call quite early ( which for light aircraft means about 50 NM) and there was plenty of time for him to manually re-enter the plan.
Interestingly , despite it being a radar environment, he wanted a manual ETA.
Nonetheless I have found Darwin tower very helpful on the several occasions i have contacted them about arrival and departure matters. Similarly with Williamtown, who were exemplary in allowing me to put down there once at very short notice in severely deteriorating weather.
Perhaps at YWLM the controllers be given a significantly greater radius to increase the lead time for their sequencing of higher speed military aircraft - but I'm no expert....
Last edited by Mimpe; 3rd Nov 2013 at 02:15.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) Having no STARs into Willy town is a joke. Has to be first on the list for easing a controllers workload. Sequence all civvies to the south (overhead if arriving from the north) and all Mil guys to the north?
2) I know better than most how much Knuckle heads like to land with as close to minimum fuel as possible, but what about a requirement to up Bingo by 10 minutes during peak periods and rather than raging in at 500kts have standard speeds....maybe 350kts below 10,000. Would make sequencing easier.
3) Paint some F*%king proper lines on the runway and add lights that work so another Jet (Alliance in August) doesn't line up on the runway edge.
GD
2) I know better than most how much Knuckle heads like to land with as close to minimum fuel as possible, but what about a requirement to up Bingo by 10 minutes during peak periods and rather than raging in at 500kts have standard speeds....maybe 350kts below 10,000. Would make sequencing easier.
3) Paint some F*%king proper lines on the runway and add lights that work so another Jet (Alliance in August) doesn't line up on the runway edge.
GD
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gundog01 spot on, however need to add the lack of a dedicated ATIS frequency. Still can't believe in 2013 180 seat jets are getting the ATIS of the NDB.
The CTA step to the north is a problem and can easy lead you to an unstable approach. This problems at Willy is going to get worse with the push to expand the terminal and more civil flights.
The CTA step to the north is a problem and can easy lead you to an unstable approach. This problems at Willy is going to get worse with the push to expand the terminal and more civil flights.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was an F18 pilot I'd want to smash into the circuit at 600kts (can they do that?) if I was a taxpayer I'd want those F18 pilots smashing into the circuit at 600kts. If they're saving my arse one day I want the bastards to do it at 600kts, not a pissy 350kts coz they've forgotten how to fly fast.
Get a grip, the RAAF own that airport, if you want to fly a piece of **** A320 into there and the boys in blue are inbound, too bad, you lose. You spin and wait.
Get a grip, the RAAF own that airport, if you want to fly a piece of **** A320 into there and the boys in blue are inbound, too bad, you lose. You spin and wait.
The reality is the RAAF share that airport and they don't own it, the Australian Government does, the RAAF are merely tenants. Therefore the government has a vested interest in making sure their jets don't run into any sort of civilian aircraft at 600kts with an under trained and over worked RAAF controller directing traffic. Other than for a bit of sport I can't see any reason in mixed traffic that a fighter needs to be doing Mach stupid in the TMA.
Originally Posted by Lookleft
Other than for a bit of sport I can't see any reason in mixed traffic that a fighter needs to be doing Mach stupid in the TMA.
Willy has always been a fighter base. It might be coined a joint-user airfield but the civvies are guests.
Wartime Darwin/Tindal: "Despot Red, what's your ETA for a refuel and rebomb?" "It could be 1200, but we're limited to 350 all the way to fit in with the C-17s and Hercs so it'll be 1220".
Do you fly passenger jets under sufferance Bloggsy? It may have escaped your notice but we are not at war with anyone at the moment where our fast jets are required so their training doesn't need to be at full throttle. If the knuckleheads want to beat up the circuit great but only operate civilian jets into there before 9:00 and after 5:00. We all know that's the only time a war will ever be fought on the East coast of Australia
Do you fly passenger jets under sufferance Bloggsy?
It may have escaped your notice but we are not at war with anyone at the moment where our fast jets are required so their training doesn't need to be at full throttle.