Wouldn’t you think they would have the guts to come on this website or issue a public statement in relation to why they force VFR aircraft to fly at low levels over the ocean when an engine failure would most likely result in all on board losing their lives?
DS,
You should take up your case with RAPAC and GA associations who can lobby for legislative change. What possible case could the airforce have for being involved in civilian aircraft separation standards? Your own posts indicate that the airforce have been in favour of airspace reform and NAS, so I assume they are not stopping it.
in this case the C182 was not held at Nobbys, it was southbound (as I originally stated) and it was told to hold when 9 nautical miles to the north east of Williamtown, flying south in the light aircraft lane over water.
It doesn't matter where it was held. It was separated with the Beech. How the delay is implemented doesn't matter. If IFR GA aircraft do not require separating from VFR when they are on a visual approach, they could be educated to cancel IFR in order to save their mates a few minutes. That can be implemented without legislation. Did the beech pilot want to be separated from an aircraft flying underneath his approach path?
Trying to give the airforce a bloody nose because they provide ATC at WLM will be ineffective. Surely they will have to implement whatever standards for civilian aircraft that they are required to by legislation.
When fighters are not operating at WLM, I don't see why transits have to use the vfr lanes. I suppose that the airspace is set up for worst case scenario (ie busy with fighters) but having an aircraft fly through final isn't too bright if it's avoidable.
P