Very interesting – especially that so many of the most recent posts on this thread are all about keeping our 1950s procedures at Williamtown. I suggest everyone looks back a the post of
mjbow2 of 19 December regarding the Amarillo Class C airspace and its dimensions. British MATZ (Military Air Traffic Zone) – some with up to 50 Tornado fighters – have even smaller dimensions.
I am not suggesting that we have the British system, I’m suggesting we use the US NAS system of MOAs – especially for places like Oakey. There you have an enormous restricted area that is nearly 50 miles in diameter to the surface for (I understand) helicopter training. That would be an ideal place for an MOA.
If the Williamtown controllers have to ensure 1,000 feet of vertical separation between IFR and VFR, it shows that the rules are out of date. For many years Australia has accepted the ICAO – I say again, ICAO – cruising level table which gives 500 feet of separation between IFR and VFR. If that is approved by ICAO, why would we need 1,000 feet when aircraft are under ATC control and have no doubt additionally been given traffic on each other?
Cap’n Arrr, I’m told that the safest place to transit an airport that has approach and departure traffic is above 5,000 feet. As I’ve mentioned, it is almost impossible to get a clearance above 5,000 feet over Williamtown – even when the airspace is only activated for civilian traffic.
As mentioned by
mjbow2, the Class C airspace in the United States only goes to 5,000 feet AGL, so most VFR aircraft would transit across the top in Class E airspace. Busy airports such as Los Angeles have VFR lanes which cross the runway complex at altitude – the safest place for VFR aircraft to be.
Pass-A-Frozo, the procedure I am talking about has no cost – it actually saves money by reducing unnecessary holding. If an airline aircraft will be at 1,500 feet by the coast on its normal departure, then there is no additional cost to be given this as a requirement in the clearance.
Wiley, we do have fighter jets flying in Class G airspace and not following pre-organised routes. I’ve even seen an F/A-18 in the Class G airspace 500 feet off the coast in Sydney with no mention of this on the NOTAMS.
Wiley, Sod’s Law and the James Reason model are completely different. The James Reason model uses probability to maximise safety – i.e. what is the mathematical probability of all the holes lining up?
Regarding the example I have given in relation to an engine failure on take off at Williamtown, it is not the
‘last slice of cheese’ as the ONLY factor between them and disaster
As both aircraft are under air traffic control and have been given traffic on each other, in the case of an engine failure wouldn’t they look out and avoid each other? It is called “alerted see and avoid.” I understand that at major airports when 747s have been given a visual approach and instructed to sight and follow another aircraft, that is what they do. They look out (using “alerted see and avoid”) and do not run into the other aeroplane.
Wiley, you seem to be coming up with every justification to keep the status quo – never move forward. Are you military trained or ex-military?
Ozbiggles, your statement
Standby for further
gives me the hint that either the military people who have fibbed to me for over a decade (saying how they are going to make important changes but never do) will either be making the changes or taking some action in relation to my statement. I’m happy either way. If I make a promise to someone and have to let them down, I contact them and explain the reason. I don’t just act as if nothing has happened. If you are suggesting that there could be some type of legal action, I will accept that. Then we will all be able to hear why promises have been made and then broken. It will be of great public interest.