Chief Wiggum, you state:
You then became part of the CAA/CASA, TWICE, yet didn't fix it, now you are complaining because for the second time in 25 years you have had to hold at Nobbys?
You and others appear to have misunderstood my post. It is headed “25 years of holding at Williamtown.” I, and others, have been held hundreds of times over the last 25 years when attempting to transit the Australian coastline at Williamtown.
I am fortunate because I can afford the extra costs, but there are others who can’t.
I look back at the letters I have received from people in the military who have asked me why their kids can’t get a job in aviation. They simply can’t link these additional costs which are applied to general aviation with the fact that general aviation is economically depressed. As I have said before, the difference between success and failure in business is often a razor’s edge.
I remember my 5 year fight back in the “Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom” days, where VFR aircraft (including helicopters) were separated as if they were IFR in all controlled airspace in Australia. I, and other helicopter pilots, would be held for 10 or 15 minutes at Hornsby, orbiting together over a built up area, so we could be let into the Sydney control zone at a 3 mile radar standard. If operating from the Darling Harbour helipad pilots were held on the ground for 15 minutes so they could be procedurally separated from one other helicopter.
I worked on this one and eventually solved it. See
here. Look at Chapter 6, page 39.
As you mentioned, I was involved with the CAA/CASA – not with the military. There have been some substantial changes in CAA/CASA, but as I mentioned previously there has not been one measurable change in 25 years in the way the military handle their airspace.
This may be acceptable if those in charge have said they have no plans to change, but as I have mentioned, they have constantly told me and others that they plan to make major changes and to bring our rules in line with those accepted in other modern aviation countries.
When I was the Chairman of the CAA back in 1991, I was wined and dined by the head of the Air Force, who told me of his plans to make major changes. Of course, nothing was ever done. We don’t even have Military Operation Areas and we still have illegal restricted areas over international waters.
SM4 Pirate and
No Further Requirements, Australia is a sovereign country. We can set our own rules. Our GAAP airports have unique rules that result in very high levels of safety and let us lead the world. This is exactly what we must do in Class E non-radar terminal airspace. That is, if our professional pilots have developed a “standard” for separation when IMC exists in Class G, which gives a very high level of safety, we can change that to a proper separation standard for ATCs to use in Class E. Remember that the ICAO standards are set for third world countries, normally by panels of not very competent bureaucrats. Our only obligation is to notify where we are different.
Why not have the advantages of Class E airspace, with the advantages of what we do now in Class G? That is, the third party involvement of an air traffic controller when in IMC.
Tobzalp, the design of the Willy zone does play a part in the issue – that is, it is 24 miles at ground level and far too large. The times I have been held (over 100 times) have been basically when there are IFR civilian aircraft approaching or departing Williamtown. Military pilots and controllers appear to be quite happy to have aircraft flying in the light aircraft lane at 500 feet when they are operating.
MTOW, you are obviously a professional aviator but you don’t seem to understand that just about every part of aviation is designed on probability. Why else would we now have twin engine aircraft such as Boeing 767s flying the Atlantic? They are clearly not as “safe” as an aircraft with 4 engines, but probability shows that the safety is acceptable.
Are you telling me that professional pilots don’t understand and agree with this probability calculation? You lose credibility if you don’t admit to the situation that actually exists.
Ozbiggles, no, I am not talking about acceptable losses. The Victor lane has substantially improved safety. Instead of air traffic controllers at Sydney having to concentrate on dozens of VFR clearances and separating VFR from VFR (as they did in the 70s) they can concentrate on the heavy jets with lots of passengers.
The chance of a big one hitting a lightie in the Victor lane is so infinitesimal that it is better to put the resources where the risks are.
Olderairhead, I realise that Williamtown is a military airport and there are jet fighters there. But tell me – in the case of a war, won’t the fighter pilots have to look out for other aircraft? They are called the enemy.
In the case of the Williamtown lane, the fighter is given traffic on the VFR aircraft – that is what happens now – and presumably does not run into the aircraft.
As mentioned previously, the holding at Nobbys (and sometimes at Port Stephens Light) is not to separate lighties from military aircraft, it is to separate lighties from Navajos or Beech 1900s that have happened to have filed IFR on a CAVOK day.
Bob55, I can see why there hasn’t been a change made in 25 years. You state:
Odds don't come into play.
I’m sure you would love to go back to the old days where we just had controlled airspace and everything was separated from each other, including VFR helicopters from VFR helicopters. We also had huge amounts of uncontrolled airspace where no separation service was given at all. Believe it or not, the international ICAO airspace system depends on “odds”– i.e. probability. It is designed to give IFR airline aircraft the same level of safety at different locations – whether it be a small airport with one service per day, or a major airport such as Sydney with many hundreds. It is all designed on probability.
Flight Me, just to confirm, I am not complaining for myself. It is the reduction in safety of having three aircraft orbiting over a built up beach where innocent people can be killed. It is also the damage that is being done to the aviation industry which can employ people – probably the children of military officers who don’t understand that their lack of decision making is one of the reasons their kids can’t get jobs.
To all the open minded people who read these posts, isn’t it interesting just how “fundamental” a small number of people are? No doubt these are the people who have closed minds and haven’t looked at how other modern aviation countries handle traffic with extremely high levels of safety, and how in other countries they look very much at cost.