25 years of holding at Williamtown

[Lagrange Mechanic]

are we a country with a military or a military with a country? :rolleyes: oh for gods sake, it is a fighter base, 1 of two 2 fully equipped for such activites, how much would it cost to relocate :hmm:, not to mention its strategic importance where IT IS :ugh:
Try recovering FA18's or Pigs et al through D or E with bug smashers that occupy a life time crossing 12nm when the mil conflicts will cover 50+ in the same time, tactical separation is hard enough let alone trying radar DTI with fast jets and Augusta's, Caravan's and 182's :hmm:.
killing families over big bad rough oceans, tit's like reading a boys own 10 page paperback :yuk: This thread is nothing more than attention seeking, get over it Smith.

[Gundog01]

but why as there such resistance to even looking at any alternatives? It’s as if people think that holding over unsafe areas should remain because that’s what we’ve always done.


Vans

No one is resisting, there isn't any formal plan or request or investigation in place. Conversations Dick was Military hierarchy about changing things dont count much when neither of them are actually responsible for legislating.

I wasn’t talking about changing dimensions, I was talking about implementing the restricted areas in the first place. I don’t think it was an ASA idea to put all that restricted airspace there, they merely approved and promulgated it after the fact.


Why would you want to talk about airspace that was put in place decades ago. It is there now so if you're mentioning it surely you must want it changed. For interests sake, "all that airspace" dosen't go very far with 4 squadrons trying to fit training in. If you get a chance you should watch a radar feed of all the traffic leaving and entering. When a typical 2 ship can use more than 50nm x 50nm, and then times that by 10-15 2 ships per day per sqn, and all of a sudden "all that airspace" dosent stretch quite as far.

Military airspace is slowly being degraded (or at least attemtped) at arguably the RAAFs 2 most important bases. Pearce - where the next generation of pilots is trained, and Willy - where the current generation trains to defend us. Why would they want to give more away or degrade operational freedom.

[vans]

Will that be all Lagrange Mechanic, or do you have something constructive to add at a later date?

I’m sure when there is a real military conflict over WLM or anywhere else in Oz for that matter, the F18’s and pigs will have the airspace all to themselves.

[Lagrange Mechanic]

where else would they stage from? or would you have intercepters based IN THE CAPITAL :hmm: and i don't mean sydney

[vans]

it is there now so if you're mentioning it surely you must want it changed.

Never in any of my posts have I even hinted at reducing or changing military airspace. My point was to demonstrate that the airspace (and other procedures at WLM) are there because the military want it there, and it was they who instigated the inception of such and not ASA. Therefore if we want any procedure at WLM changed we should first approach the military, not ASA as others have suggested. Once the military have agreed, then it has to go through ASA (CASA/DOTARS, whatever) for approval.

I am happy for the military to have all the airspace that is necessary, as long as it is necessary and the military, where they have agreed to share such airspace with civilian users, are at least willing to listen to any safety or efficiency issues that may be raised with regard to the use of that airspace in the areas they have designated for such use. This isn’t happening at the moment, despite some indications that things will change.

[Dick Smith]

Howabout,Col did not phone me back so I phoned him again. He said he did remember me talking about "announcements" but he wasn't sure they were to be TV announcements!
He said he would support TV announcements of a certain type-and we would have to discuss this.
During this second conversation he said that he was scared that any publicity on this issue may result in CASA bringing in even more restrictions for single engined aircraft.
He also agreed that it was extraordinary that Tim Blatch would put on such a post which basically called an AOPA member a liar without first phoning me to check my version of the conversation. Col said he would ask Tim why he did this and get back to me.
If you really could be bothered to get to the bottom of this I suggest you phone Col directly on 0408250910.
I stand by my origional post.

[Lagrange Mechanic]

and after the break

hair pulling phone throwing meglomaniac wrestling :D

[mjbow2]

Try recovering FA18's or Pigs et al through D or E with bug smashers that occupy a life time crossing 12nm when the mil conflicts will cover 50+ in the same time, tactical separation is hard enough let alone trying radar DTI with fast jets and Augusta's, Caravan's and 182's

What is interesting is that VFR in E while military jets in E and D are operating has been tried, very successfully. Why not try it here in Australia where there is only a fraction of the density of both military and VFR aircraft? Perhaps you Lagrange Mechanic are another that will oppose change at any chance regardless of the proven system being suggested.

See this post here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3782622&postcount=34) and here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3782687&postcount=38) where other countries can do it with many times the volume of traffic yet you refuse to even consider a different way of doing things.

MJ

[vans]

where else would they stage from? or would you have intercepters based IN THE CAPITAL and i don't mean sydney
I don’t really care…..you can stage out of Mungabroom if necessary! My point is that in time of conflict you wont have to worry about Try recovering FA18's or Pigs et al through D or E with bug smashers that occupy a life time crossing 12nm when the mil conflicts will cover 50+ in the same time, tactical separation is hard enough let alone trying radar DTI with fast jets and Augusta's, Caravan's and 182's because the airspace will be all yours. In the meantime, learn to share it.

[Dick Smith]

Mjbow2, you state:

Why not try it here in Australia where there is only a fraction of the density of both military and VFR aircraft? This is what I have been working on for 15 years. It is indeed extraordinary that most of these people are not even interested in finding out how the system can work better. This is why I do have a genuine concern about what would happen in the case of a war – where the best decisions must be made promptly.

Before everyone starts rubbishing me again, how can the military people possibly change their culture overnight? That is, at one stage fiercely resist change and not be interested in any way on how there could be a better way of doing something, but in an emergency situation such as a war, then ask for the best advice? This is a genuine comment and not “bagging” any particular person or group.

It seems to me as if there is a culture in the military not to ask advice and not to copy the best. It appears that soon there is to be about $1 billion written off on the Super Seasprite helicopter contract. Where does that money come from? Does it end up coming out of the superannuation of the military employees, or is it just refunded by Government from the taxpayer?

Is there any accountability? Who was the Chief of Air Force at the time of this order? I have no idea who it was. Does this person have any accountability, or does the military operate in a way where they would say, “Oh, he wouldn’t have known the full details of the contract, so he has no responsibility at all”?

Whichever way you look at it, if this contract is written off, around about $1 billion heads off (I presume) to the USA – less wealth for Australia and less wealth for the people in the military, including the ATCs.

[Spaghetti Monster]

It seems to me as if there is a culture in the military not to ask advice and not to copy the best. It appears that soon there is to be about $1 billion written off on the Super Seasprite helicopter contract. Where does that money come from? Does it end up coming out of the superannuation of the military employees, or is it just refunded by Government from the taxpayer?

Is there any accountability? Who was the Chief of Air Force at the time of this order? I have no idea who it was. Does this person have any accountability, or does the military operate in a way where they would say, “Oh, he wouldn’t have known the full details of the contract, so he has no responsibility at all”?


Dick, I think you'll find that the Super Seasprite is a naval helicopter, and was ordered by the Navy to be operated by the Navy. The Air Force doesn't actually operate any helicopters at all. Therefore the CAF of the time probably doesn't have any accountability for the project. Perhaps his identity is not the only thing you 'really have no idea' about?

Just a minor point.

[Dick Smith]

Spaghetti Monster, of course. I realised this just after I made the post. The same issue still applies regarding accountability of the Chief of Navy.

[Pera]

Dick,

Because the military (who aren't responsible for the changes you want) haven't implemented your changes, they are unable to fight a war.

I'm not sure that argument will win you any new friends.

Van,

The military aren't responsible for the changes you want. As DS has posted, the military are in favour of airspace reform, so move on to the other parties.

[Tim Blatch]

Col Rodgers, AOPA President, has asked me to again post his words and ensure our position re Williamtown is understood.

GA single engine aircraft circling over water at 500’ is a safety matter of concern to all. We earlier added it to the agenda for NSW RAPAC of 7 February where military, regulatory and aviation representatives are present to discuss issues and initiate due process solutions. Williamtown is already separately on the RAPAC agenda as regards improving the safety of the inland route.

We do not intend to work outside the established regulatory framework or indulge in media campaigns that could be counter productive not only to public opinion of GA but also to our robust but strong evidence and data based working relationship with RAPAC and regulators.

Clearances through military airspace are a separate issue that we are addressing via ASTRA and the emerging provision of flexible use airspace. There may well be some cultural inhibitors to change but our approach is to seek data – e.g. times and areas flown by military aircraft – that enables rational discussion of safe future options.

As regards posts by Dick, we value Dick as we value all members that we represent on aviation issues. However Dick posts as himself with his own beliefs, not on behalf of AOPA, and we expect neither party to seek the advice of the other before posting.

We do not intend to enter into a “he said … she said” debate on here as it is irrelevant to the safety issue. Suffice to note that people’s beliefs colour the perceptions of what they hear and Col and Dick had very different understandings of their conversations.

To summarise - our role is to pursue the safety issue raised by several members – that’s what we are doing, and we thank the contributors to this debate who have added to our broader understanding of the situation.

Tim Blatch
AOPA CEO

[ozbiggles]

A very good and constructive approach from AOPA (let me add I'm not a member but might be encouraged now to do so as it seems there is some rational thought there).
I wish AOPA all the best in finding a constructive outcome for all their members with concerns. It may not be a 100% fix for everyone but at least it appears the people who discuss these matters do it in a mature way.

[Dick Smith]

It is interesting that Col doesn’t post in relation to his conversation with me. I believe I know why.

I wish AOPA luck with its “working relationship with RAPAC and regulators.” Some may remember in 1996/1997 AOPA worked with the RAPACs, the regulator and the military in relation to the unnecessary holding of aircraft at Williamtown. Lots of promises were made but unfortunately nothing changed.

The bureaucrats responsible for change seem to be experts at keeping the lid on everything – i.e. keep it out of the media, minimise any exposure, keep writing letters and having lots of meetings - then do nothing. Hopefully the complainants will go away. Of course, that is what we did 12 years ago – we went away.

In relation to AOPA addressing issues with ASTRA, I understood that ASTRA was set up in the interests of Airservices Australia and the airlines. I haven’t seen anything other than delaying tactics in relation to airspace – i.e. the claim that we will have some yet to be designated new categories of airspace, knowing that this will delay Australia moving to an existing proven airspace system which facilitates efficient movement of VFR traffic.

Many have worked hard to make AOPA effective over the years, however the astuteness of those against assisting the GA community has very effectively prevented this. By having lots of meetings which result in people flying around the country, but actually not making any changes, those who resist the change can probably go on forever.

[T28D]

Dick, Well said AOPA talk is cheap, there is lots of it and as you correctly point out the talk goes back decades.

Holding at Williamtown VFR is an ongoing farce.

[CaptainMidnight]

AOPA: well said and well done; working directly with the authorities and industry forums in a constructive way, rather than pointless grandstanding and mud slinging.

And I see that after this very issue was raised at an industry forum last year, you are working on it with RAAF WLM and CASA. I understood that ASTRA was set up in the interests of Airservices Australia and the airlines. ASTRA was set up in the interests of "Australias whole of industry Air Traffic Management (ATM) planning body. ASTRA includes Airlines, Airports, Regional Aviation, Pilots, GA and various government organisations."

It's aim "The Plan sets the path for the future development of ATM in Australia over the next 15+ years and describes an ideal vision for the future. It highlights Australias commitment to the implementation of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) concept and global plan for ATM."

Thus copying a system from the U.S. that even the FAA admits is archaic and unchanged from the 1960's is possibly not where they see Australia or the world in 15+ years with the advances in avionics and surveillance.

And mods: as this thread is now going round in circles, has it run it's course?

[Gundog01]

mjbow2, you say

What is interesting is that VFR in E while military jets in E and D are operating has been tried, very successfully. Why not try it here in Australia where there is only a fraction of the density of both military and VFR aircraft?

I am interested how you decide that this is "very successful". Any idea of the number of near misses that occur in the UK and USA between Mil fastjets and Lighties??? You will be surprised. Is this sort of risk (ie mid airs) better than holding for a couple of minutes. Remember the 'Big Sky Theory' never works.

[T28D]

Why has the thread run its course , just because someone might not agree with AOPA ????

You can run but you can't hide.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Leave AOPA out of this. All they have done is stated that they do not support the idea of an Ad campaign that could portray GA in a very bad light.
(It doesn't necessarily mean that AOPA doesn not support the idea of better or more streamlined procedures for getting a coastal clearance through WLM)
Dick Smith has said he had the support of AOPA pres. To which the CEO has come out and refuted the claim. Dick Smith still asserts his version is correct. T28D you make up your own mind. AOPA will remain on its own course. Those are the facts. This is still an inane attempt of Mr Smith to introduce US class D to all tower aerodromes in Australia.

US class D would still have a 5nm radius control zone around WLM. However, by simply making communication contact with said tower constitutes a clearance.( You still would be held to clear traffic inbound and outbound from the field) Failing that, Dick would still be able to overfly the aerodrome at 3000ft. Dick would not have to worry about R578A,B,C and E or R587 or R596 because under NAS these would all be rationalised into Military Operations Areas, Military Training Areas MTR and Warning areas for all offshore R. The only areas that will remain as R will be live firing areas. What will this mean? It will mean that a simple call to ATC (phone, to whom?. Radio ? ATC? Tower?) to ascertain what part has any activity and proceed through with caution, Active or Not! There should be no unneccessary delay to any GA aircraft by military airspace. This is Dick's dream. Because that is how they do it in the US. These are the characteristics left to impliment in NAS. Why did you wait till now to start aggitating Mr Smith? Are we setting up a precident to dazzle the new Transport Minister?

I have often wonder how the US military can have such bazaar mid airs like the one where a Mil F111 mistook a Commander690 for a KC135 and closed in at the usual speed only to realise too late they did not have a tanker in front of them. No points for guessing what happened next.

[mighty_kiowa]

I find it interesting that many blather on about a 'safety' issue to be held over water in the Willy coastal corridor.....
Funny how did they get there????
Coastal no doubt .... probably at 500' or below.
Were they thinking about being able to reach the coastline in the event of an engine failure then?? doubt it ...... to busy enjoying the view.

So if it is okay to fly over water and have a fat old time coastal low level then why is it such a big issue to hold over water for mil ops.

The RAAF ATC are professionals and do not hold you for fun. A lot is happening in the restricted areas east and west which for fast jets can only be 5 min transit to Willytown.... about the time most lighties would be reaching abeam centeline or the overhead!

So why don't you just smile, say thanks to ATC and be on your way.:)

[Creampuff]

Single-engined aircraft using Victor 1 past Sydney have to be over water at 500' for at least 5 minutes.

Victor 1 must be closed now, on safety grounds.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick said:

Many have worked hard to make AOPA effective over the years, however the astuteness of those against assisting the GA community has very effectively prevented this.

Yuckspeak's library of 1,000,000 for... "My crash or crash-through approach was an abject failure...".

[Dick Smith]

Capn Bloggs, I respect your right to believe that the present airspace and regulatory system is pretty satisfactory and does not need to be changed. I happen to have a different view. I do not have a “crash or crash-through approach.”

My suggestion is that you take the time to read the Unsafe Skies chapters (see here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/the_book.php)) on the Benalla accident, where 6 people unnecessarily lost their lives, and also the very serious Qantas incident at Canberra. I believe that if we upgrade the airspace and follow the Government policy for NAS, the chance of this type of accident and incident can be substantially reduced.

At the present time, more than 2 years after the publication of Unsafe Skies, there has been no substantive change in the airspace and procedures at Canberra or Benalla.

I wonder how many more people will die before we will grasp the nettle and make safety improvements which are well proven in other aviation countries.

Capn Bloggs, you tend to attack me personally rather than look at the issues involved. Do you think that air traffic controllers could be trained to check whether an aircraft approaching Benalla was actually heading for the correct waypoint and not 11 miles from it? Do you think the airspace at Canberra can remain with the Centre after the tower closes so a full radar service is provided?

The problem with resisting change is that probability catches up, and in inevitable accident takes place.

I’m sure there must be changes that you and I would agree on. Let’s find out what they are and work together on them. We may get somewhere!

[No Further Requirements]

Dick, the airspace around Canberra does go to Melbourne Centre when the tower and approach close up. The classification below A090 changes to class G though. I know what you're going to to say, it should be E to the deck almost. Now, that's all very well, however the controller who looks after Canberra at night also looks after most of SE Australia. I counted the number of instrument approaches to the main aerodromes in that area one day - over 70 - and that was before they took over the YAS and JVS sectors too. So add another 20 or 30 there. I don't believe ATC could provide a class E service with the current airspace divisions and ATC numbers. Too much airspace to carefully monitor all approaches.

Now, the Canberra incident was a number of holes in the Swiss cheese, not the fault of TAAAAAAAAAAAATS terrain monitoring, which I think you are getting at. The airspace, terrain and instrument approaches are very complex. The main reason the GPWS went off is the crew elected to hold at CCK at A050, which has a DME limit on it. I think what you want to see is ATC monitoring tracking with respect to terrain. In this case, the GPWS and the MSAW on TAAAAAAAATS would have gone off at around the same time. The hills rise rapidly. Now, if the crew had held at A060, there is no DME limit, just a speed limit for a 1 minute pattern. A better decision by far, but only intimate knowledge of each and every instrument plate by an ATC would have been able to pick the 'error' up.

We need more ATCers right now to maintain the level of service we are expected to provide. Increasing the amount of CTA without increasing our numbers will result in very poor levels of service, very busy ATCers and more than likely very busy AsA admin staff processing resignations (more than now).

Dick, if you really want to help, aim your efforts that you seem to be directing towards airspace reform into ATC recruitment & retention. If our numbers are right, then we can look at airspace reform. That's the basic idea.

Cheers,

NFR.

PS Seem you invite us to go flying with you, I'd like to ask you to come in plug in with me for a while. PM me if you are interested.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

NFR:ok: Mr Smith, I hope you take up the offer.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,

NFR has summed it up nicely. The monster that you created, AsA, is now in control (well, maybe not...)

And if you think I'm attacking you, I'm not even trying...yet. :) :ok:

----------------------------------------

Capn

Mr Smith had nothing to do with creating Airservices Australia. That was done by a Labor Government splitting the CAA apart - well after Mr Smith's reign.

And if you're thinking of attacking anyone, I recommend you re-think your strategy.

Play the ball - not the man!

Tail Wheel

[Runaway Gun]

I've been out of Australia for some time, yet am still involved in flying overseas.

Therefore please forgive me for not being too interested in the politics that seem to prevail in this thread. They may in fact, be important, but I'd just like to spend my little spare time airing this.

Surely Dick Smith is not trying to push these points for his own benefit, profit, or personal gains. He is a successful businessman, has achieved outstanding successes in aviation, and has inspired more than one Ppruner to commit aviation. I do hope that he is not a victim of the 'tall poppy' syndrome.

Whilst it's true that you can't please all of the people, all of the time, I do think that DS is certainly trying to improve aviation, at a time when the world is going crazy with 'enforcing new rules that we just made up...' The time when I remember flying as liberating and relaxing, seems to be on the way out, with ridiculous fees, rules, restrictions and possible lawsuits. Of course, safety should prevail, but not to the extent that we leave our aircraft permanently in the titanium hangar so as to improve statistics.

Why can't the Australian aviation fraternity can work together in a mature fashion to improve the flying envornment for everyone, rather than bickering?

A man such as Dick Smith can surely be more useful if kept onside, and I'm sure that he is only here to help.


And no, I'm not Dick Smith, not related to him, never worked for him, nor have been wined nor dined by the fella :)

[Dick Smith]

Ozbusdriver, I will be taking up No Further Requirements’ offer. It would be really worth my while for me to come up to date again on how the ATC side works. The last time I sat at a console was before TAAATS was introduced. I have PMd No Further Requirements to make arrangements.

[jumpuFOKKERjump]

the controller who looks after Canberra at night also looks after most of SE Australia....and soon to add the rest of VIC, half of SA and all of TAS...

[OZBUSDRIVER]

It would be really worth my while for me to come up to date again on how the ATC side works. The last time I sat at a console was before TAAATS was introduced.

You mean you have NEVER set foot in an ATC since 1998? Serious?:eek:

Dick, it WILL be worth your while. Believe me:ok:

Witnessed the start of the transition at Cairns the first night of operations in the BN centre. Old and the New. What a difference! Going from the old tubes to the new computer based system. Like a TRS80 compared to a modern Pentium on steroids...lots of steroids!

[CaptainMidnight]

I have PMd No Further Requirements to make arrangementsDare I suggest that if someone in your position wishes to visit an ATC centre, the appropriate protocol is you contact the CEO, not put a line controller on the spot?

Given your past record of castigation of ASA, the CEO and his managers .....

[BurglarsDog]

To be fair NFR did offer and Im sure protocols will be followed.

That said, I hope management dont hijack the visit as DS may not get to see exactly what goes on at the coal face - pros and cons.
During a quiet moment maybe NFR and DS can discuss some of the problems associated with VFR ops within Mil airspace !

Hope the visit goes well!

DogGone:ok:

[Dick Smith]

Ozbusdriver, a number of years ago I was shown through the Brisbane Centre but I was not able to sit at a console – which would be really worthwhile as I have spent thousands of hours in the cockpit and I would like to be updated as to what is happening on the console with TAAATS.

I’m also interested in the point that was made to me by a South African air traffic control manager, who thought that we would be more efficient if we had more than one person at a console. That is an interesting point which I would like to discuss.

CaptainMidnight, it is very sad but I found it nearly impossible to arrange a meeting with people from Airservices Australia. This started many years before I became vocal about the management.

For example, on many occasions I have attempted to arrange an appointment with the Chairman of Airservices, Mr Nick Burton Taylor. I have never been able to arrange this – even though I would be happy to go anywhere for the meeting. It is almost as if he has been told, “Chairman, make sure you never talk to Dick Smith because he may put some ideas into your head which we don’t want you to have.”

I know a couple of the AsA Board members – I think their terms expire shortly. In the past I would phone them from time to time to discuss aviation.. It was obvious that they were very concerned about talking to me. It was as if they had been told, “Whatever you do, don’t talk to Dick Smith.”

When I was the Chairman of CAA and CASA, I encouraged my Board members to talk to anyone they could to get as much direct information as possible. I believed this was an important responsibility for a Board member – that is, not just believe what you are being told by the management or your Chairman.

I have always believed that in relation to aviation safety, everything should be completely open – i.e. no secrets. It is the best way of spending the finite dollar most effectively.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dear Tailwheel,

Mr Smith had nothing to do with creating Airservices Australia. That was done by a Labor Government splitting the CAA apart - well after Mr Smith's reign.

Mr Smith stepped down from the CAA in Feb 92. The report that recommended the breakup was handed to parliament in May 1995. It was therefore started well before then. If you think that Dick didn't have any thing to do with it, IMO you're dreaming.

And if you're thinking of attacking anyone, I recommend you re-think your strategy

Dick stated that I "tend to attack him personally". My comment was merely a tongue-in-cheek response. And I did put a couple of smilies indicating what I was on about...

Play the ball - not the man!.

I always do. Strident criticism of a person's beliefs is not playing the man. If I was to accuse him of being a #$%^& *)(&^ !@#$$%^ and a #$%^^&, then fair enough. But that is not the case.

Bloggs. :ok:

[tail wheel]

Capn Bloggs.

If my memory serves me correctly, the division of CAA into CASA and AsA in 1995 was the direct result of recommendations made following the Monarch Airlines accident in 1993 and the Seaview accident in October 1994.

It was a recommendation of the Staunton Report and an expedient political decision made by the then Labour Government, to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest between the regulator, CASA, and the Government's profitable business entity, AsA.

All these events occurred well after Mr Smith left the CAA in early 1992.

The thread topic is "25 years of holding at Williamtown". Can we stick to the that topic please?

Tail Wheel

[CaptainMidnight]

CaptainMidnight, it is very sad but I found it nearly impossible to arrange a meeting with people from Airservices Australia.Not surprising - what do you expect?

When you've made accusations of corruption, union dominance and favouritism etc. against ASA CASA ATSB etc. over many years it is little wonder they won't engage you.

AOPA and other industry groups and organisations have the right idea - they work with the authorities and each other with a spirit of cooperation.

As a one man band representing no-one, not listening to others and forcing your viewpoint on the industry, you will continue to get nowhere.

[Dick Smith]

CaptainMidnight, you state:

As a one man band representing no-one, not listening to others and forcing your viewpoint on the industry, you will continue to get nowhere. In your dreams – and if you are going to attack me in such a personal way, don’t be a coward, put your name to the attacks. I have criticised AsA, CASA and the ATSB, but I put my name to my comments. These are all wealthy and powerful organisations that can stand up for themselves and answer my claims if they are incorrect. If I say anything against them which is wrong or defamatory, they can take the necessary action.

You are dreaming because you probably don’t realise that behind the scenes, I have a lot of support. This is confirmed by the continuous emails I receive from everyone from air traffic controllers and professional pilots to the general public. I suggest that you walk around with me next time I visit a GA airport. Many people come up and show their support.

By the way, any success I have achieved in life has come from listening to others, asking advice, and then deciding which is the correct advice. Obviously from your posts, the advice I take doesn’t comply with what you believe is correct – that is why you say I’m “not listening to others.” You actually mean that “I’m not acting on your viewpoint.”

In relation to the statement that I am forcing my viewpoint on the industry, where is the evidence of this? Are you referring to NAS? You are ignoring the fact that NAS was developed by Qantas and myself, and then chosen as the airspace to proceed with by the Aviation Reform Group – which included the current Chief of Defence. As I have stated before, do you really believe that my influence is so great that he, and others on the ARG, were forced to comply with my viewpoint?

You state:

AOPA and other industry groups and organisations have the right idea - they work with the authorities and each other with a spirit of cooperation. Wouldn’t this be great if it got any results? During the last 10 years, AOPA has done a tremendous amount of work to try to make changes to assist general aviation. What are the results? Just about absolutely zero. AOPA and its members have been exploited in every way by the Canberra system.

For example, AOPA agreed to a unique mandatory transponder requirement in Class E airspace so that their members would not be unnecessarily delayed (and have extra costs) when wanting to fly across the top of airports such as Albury and Coffs Harbour – just as happens in most other countries in the world. The agreed airspace was then reversed by Airservices, but Airservices left the mandatory transponder requirement in, which resulted in AOPA being clearly exploited.

Before the last AOPA President (Ron Bertram) died, he was negotiating with Airservices to prevent the increase of Class C airspace to the north of Melbourne. He was led to believe that if he used behind the scenes consultation, this would not go ahead as it did not comply with Government policy nor the system used in any other modern aviation country. Of course it was all a con. Airservices went ahead with the extra Class C anyway and ignored the objective reasons that AOPA put forward.

CaptainMidnight, I think I know why you post anonymously. You are obviously close to Airservices or some other Canberra bureaucracy which has been successful in making sure that general aviation is destroyed in every way possible. Most would agree that there has now been nearly two decades of a total “one way ratchet” exploitation of GA in this country.

I’ve had someone do a summary of your posts on this site. This is what the person has come up with. “He’s a real fundamentalist who resists change. He dislikes NAS, Class E, UNICOMs, Flight Following and MOAs. He likes LLAMP, ADS-B and CAGROs. He wants AOPA to have a spirit of cooperation with Airservices and keep everything out of the public eye. He is anti-CASA, anti-Dick Smith and pro-Airservices.”

I’m amazed that Airservices won’t even give AOPA one slight success, so they can say to their members, “Look, we actually got something for you.” At the present time, the terminal fees at airports like Bankstown – and other GA airports – are increasing by nearly 50% over 3 years. Flightwatch is in the process of being removed, which will further disadvantage GA as the airlines generally have the ARINC network or similar to print out weather details in the cockpit. I understand that Airservices are now looking at bringing in higher charges for flight planning and SARTIMEs for GA aircraft.

Of course, Airservices will convince the genuine AOPA Board that all discussions on this should be done “secretly” behind the scenes. By keeping it out of the media they will then make a unilateral decision to do exactly what is in their self-interest.

I can see why Airservices, and their supporters such as yourself, are doing this – destroying the GA industry. There are good commercial imperatives, as when fewer people fly in GA (either privately or in business) they will tend to fly in the airlines. This means more bonuses for the Airservices Australia executives. And of course, at $100 to $190 per hour, more restrictive rules and cost recovery requirements for CASA will do further damage to AOPA members.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,
Airservices went ahead with the extra Class C anyway and ignored the objective reasons that AOPA put forward.
Come on! Airservices followed this policy:

I have achieved in life has come from listening to others, asking advice, and then deciding which is the correct advice.

Just because you disagree, you throw a paddy.

I’ve had someone do a summary of your [Capt Midnight's] posts on this site. This is what the person has come up with. “He’s a real fundamentalist who resists change. He dislikes NAS, Class E, UNICOMs, Flight Following and MOAs. He likes LLAMP, ADS-B and CAGROs. He wants AOPA to have a spirit of cooperation with Airservices and keep everything out of the public eye. He is anti-CASA, anti-Dick Smith and pro-Airservices.”

That is the most disgusting thing I have read recently. For it you should be condemned. Using your own henchmen to research people... :yuk:

[Dick Smith]

It was a henchwomen

[airmuster]

Does anyone remember the good ol days.

We learnt to fly. Hated yet respected DCA. Spoke in clear concise English and spoke only when required to........ and everyone got on with the job without malice etc.

Good thing I'm out in the sticks........

[Pat Mcgroin]

I think the position of one RHS would be akin to sand - always shifting :ok:

[ozbiggles]

Well a new low
Having someone do assessments on peoples views and opinions on this site and getting an opinion on them and then in addition posting that opinion on this site.
If the government or a business did that I'm sure there would be a hell to pay.
A sad sad development for PPRUNE I'm afraid.

What did she say about me?????

[LeadSled]

Folks,

Back to Williamtown.

The scheduled NSW RAPAC meeting was held yesterday at YSBK, and what an interesting meeting it was. The civilian numbers were almost matched by the military numbers, and it was not for want of the usual civil attendance.

AOPA made a very reasonable and reasoned request re. Willie, to meet a wall of RAAF intransigence or indifference, or both.

The RAAF responses were, in my opinion, not entirely coherent, swapping backwards and forwards between a position of "it's all the civilian traffic's fault, anyway", then detailing F/A-18 VFR departure procedures that keep them well above the coastal VFR lane, then telling us about why such huge airspace is required by the RAAF (compared, say, the the RAF, the USAF etc).

When the matter of the particular Australia Day incident was raised, the reaction, from a young lady who we presumed to be a Willie controller, was in my opinion extraordinarily emphatic, bordering on volcanic,disputing the versions of events of the two (civil) aircraft involved. I, for one, was left in no doubt as to the continuance of the attitude that I have experienced so often ----- the legitimate rights (and it is a right for an Australian citizen to used Australian airspace, let's not hear that it is a "privilege" to be bestowed or withheld by some middle ranking civil or military officer) of ALL civil traffic to not be unnecessarily impeded simply does not wash. As an aside, for those of you wedded to the "privilege" approach, please refresh yourselves with existing Government policy and present and pending changes.

The RAAF, as represented yesterday, certainly are very reticent about sharing airspace with other traffic (including the Army). A proposal for Airservices to rationalise some of the steps to the west of Richmond was not greeted kindly by the RAAF representatives. Traffic levels and any consideration of risk management didn't get a look in.

Even more extraordinary, a proposal for a flying training area for the Army, to the west and south-west of Camden, accepted without dissent by all civilian representative, met with the suggestion, by one RAAF officer,that the whole area (which is the main S/SW VFR route for GA traffic in and out of the Sydney basin) become a RESTRICTED area north of the Hume Highway, from just west of Wilton, down to almost Yass, beyond Crookwell, and almost up to Oberon --- Which would leave another "lane" (presumably) over Katoomba, for VFR traffic travelling west.

The RAAF approach to establishing restricted airspace, with (in this case) little apparent regard for low level civil traffic, is certainly (long over) due for a shake-up.

Happy days, how little progress we have made, Richmond and Willie airspace was on the agenda of the first RAPAC I ever attended, and that is a long, long time ago, much longer than 25 years.

Happy Days ??

Tootle pip !!

[T28D]

Lead Sled now let me try logic, the RAAF have less aircraft than 20 years ago, the aircraft they have are higher performance than 20 years ago, and now they need more dedicated training restricted airspace to ground level.

As a scotsman might say, it makes nae sense.

[cbradio]

You are dreaming because you probably don’t realise that behind the scenes, I have a lot of support. This is confirmed by the continuous emails I receive from everyone from air traffic controllers

well, someone is dreaming (unless you include ex-ATC mate(s) emailing ;) ).


I’ve had someone do a summary of your posts on this site. This is what the person has come up with

unbelievable.

Please never stop posting on Pprune Dick - the whole industry over the last couple of years has been able to get a great insight into the "Dick Smith Way" - and maybe you are confusing "support" with "Yes, Dick, whatever you say Dick (walks off shaking head)".

[Track Coastal]

The minutes of RAPAC meetings are available here:
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/customer/rapac/default.asp

I sure am keen to read the minutes of the one you just described when it gets published!

When the matter of the particular Australia Day incident was raised, the reaction, from a young lady who we presumed to be a Willie controller, was in my opinion extraordinarily emphatic, bordering on volcanic,disputing the versions of events of the two (civil) aircraft involved. I, for one, was left in no doubt as to the continuance of the attitude that I have experienced so often

Nothing like putting a name to vitriole!;)

[BurglarsDog]

Having seen the minutes of a RAPAC meeting regarding TVL and North Queensland aeronautical matters a few years ago on the net, I assume that the minutes of this meeting will also be published in the public domain.

Anyone ??

DogGone

[Spaz Modic]

:zzz: Now, what ya gotta remember fly boys and gals, is that the knucks are a bit ropey near the ground -below 1500'.
Above that they are second to none.
SO - don't expect any joy from the Military steel traps when it comes to giving anything away, which they don't really own anyway.
We, the taxpayers, own it. We authorise the Mil. to use it on our behalf to protect the nation, via the Min of Def. :E Meanwhile let's enjoy watching the knucks at play.:ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick Smith, Leadsled and T28D all have one thing in common. Crash through or crash? Crash and Burn? Crashed? EX? Say no more!

WLM airspace is WLM airspace. Why is everyone getting their knickers in a knot about operating in a control zone and under an approach path. May I suggest, we look at the idea of moving the reporting points further out and higher to allow for timely changes in tracks as required. It would appear that even 9nm out is too much to comprehend for some pilots. In order to make them give a timely request fro ATC you may well move them back another 6nm. This will still not negate the occurence of diversion or holds. You cannot control what pilots do in their activities when taking off or approaching to land so allowances have to be made for minor delays.

Using WLM as an example to introduce US style class D is disengenious.

[dircmt]

I guess it should not surprise anyone who reads this thread to see the so called recollections of the RAPAC meeting that took place in Sydney as given by LeadSled.

As a witness to the RAPAC there were indeed a large number of military people present but I believe that they were all representing the particular area for which they are subject matter experts.

The response from the RAAF to the issues that pertained to them were measured and clear albeit not necessarily the desired ones.



What was not mentioned was the fact that a presentation was made by one of the RAAF Officers explaining how they were attempting to rationalise airspace in preparation for new platforms and impede as little as possible the impact on civilian traffic. Seems very proactive!

With reference the subject of this thread, I do not believe that the young lady who responded to the questions about the Australia Day incident was in anyway "volcanic", in fact she made it quite clear to all that she was concerned with the events described and had investigated the incident thoroughly to ensure that the aircraft involved had not been put into an unsafe situation and merely stated what had been found on a review of tapes. It was also made very clear to the members of RAPAC that should any aircraft who received a clearance limit feel that they were in a genuine unsafe situation they should speak to ATC. It was also explained to the RAPAC that RAAF ATC are obliged to fully separate with the civilian RPT traffic that they control in and out of Newcastle airport and that this sometimes required civilian aircraft to be imposed a clearance limit, but that the military aircraft already flew different to try and leave the lane clear.

LeadSled also fails to mention that the individual who raised the Australia Day incident became highly emotive himself with respect to any civilian aircraft not being able to track wherever they wanted and was not open to any suggestion that in fact a full investigation had taken place and perhaps there were indeed two sides to the matter.

I think that this was a reasonable response from the Defence force, but can also see from having read this thread that it would not matter what response Defence gave at RAPAC that they would be misinterpreted and misrepresented to the readers here, there will always be parties here dissatisfied with any response, except of course that we move the Defence assets to an island far far away where they would impede nobody whilst they trained to ……oh that’s right defend this nation so that GA can fly!.

[Dick Smith]

Dircmt,If you are refering to me,you are incorrect. I have never requested ,or even suggested, that civilian traffic at Williamtown be "able to track wherever they wanted". Quite the opposite. I have constantly stated that the procedures should be updated so they reflect those that exist in other modern aviation countries.

You also imply that I was not open to any suggestion "that a full investigation had taken place" This is wrong as I have not commented on the matter at all.
In relation to the comment that a particular aircraft may not have been put in a dangerous situation(due to it being held over the ocean)-what about all the other aircraft that are?
Most importantly,it looks again if the Williamtown people are not even considering looking at more modern separation procedures and routing which would most likely eliminate the requirement to hold VFR aircraft.
Totally closed minds! Lets hope these people are not in charge if we have a war.

And by the way,it would matter what response defence gave at the RAPAC meeting- if they stated they were going to investigate how similar airspace was handled in other modern aviation countries there would be loud rejoicing all around!

[Capn Bloggs]

Thanks for your "contrarian" view, dircmt. It's good to see there is another side to the story. :ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Using WLM as an example to introduce US style class D is disengenious because-

Even if US class D was placed at YWLM, there would still be the same problem. WLM is located close to the beach. Any aircraft using the coastal route under a US class D would still be flying through what should be considered as "STERILE" airspace for the use of arriving/departing aircraft to/from 12/30.

Even if US class D vertical limits were placed around YWLM there would still be the issue of what airspace to place above a towered aerodrome. Certainly not class E as learned around YMAY. Aircraft attempting to overfly an active YWLM would still need a clearance to do so.

I am against the idea of US class D in the particular instant that a clearance is implied once ATC has acknowledged your transmission.

The "contrary" (I would expect to be the truthful) report on the NSW RAPAC says that the RAAF is rationalising ahead of a new platform. Why don't we wait and see what happens next?

[dircmt]

Mr Smith, just to clarify, I believe that I referred to the individual that was present at RAPAC and I do not believe that you were there?

Also, I believe and I may be wrong that it was stated that various different methods were being looked at processing of aircraft through the airspace, including flight planning at higher levels, but that the training areas to the north were a consideration. I think that there is an issue with lack of visual reference points for VFR aircraft to be given alternative tracking via without building in lots of extra track miles.

[BurglarsDog]

In my very humble opinion, RAPAC metings, may not change much from the Mil side, as there is often no ownership of decisions taken or promises made,
( people talk the talk but dont always have the authority to walk the walk and they often subsequently get promoted or moved). If anything, class C airspace in Oz is in many cases an overkill. Compared to class D what are the working diffferences? Without digging out the books DOC 4444 etc, I would suggest only one thing; ATC dont have to separate VFR from IFR. In real terms this means that one doesnt have to always prove a standard but merely ensure that no confliction occurs! Therefore ATC will still separate and flow all traffic within the circuit area to the runway. But, there is a big difference; the Task is easier and the Process is infinitely more expeditious for the user. Dont know Willies airspace or procedures, but from my experience from working several hundred fast jet movements a day plus civil IFR etc into a murky UK mil airfield with no airspace , basically class G, and far less into a CAVOK Nth Queensland one with class C, the rules in Oz are complex and inexpeditious for many users! And while you may quote safety this and safety that, what about places like Avalon with RPT and no ATC!! And TIBA? WTF? Everything has a cost -hence Risk management strategies. Too safe is inefficient! Has Willy got one for this coastal VFR route for example? Does it need one?

As DS eludes to, flying time is money and there is obviously a conflict of interests around the bazaars - currently focused on Willy (watch this space -TVL still doesnt have a traffic management plan despite various RAPACS, rising traffic levels and a general lack of experience!)

Oz ATC has the talent but needs to be a little more receptive to change and perhaps look at alternative uses of its more popular bits of airspace. It needs a lot more use of radar, particularly up the east coast,( more controllers I know) it should consider flexible use of airspace and if this ever gets put in place look at introducing a RIS, RAS system AKA UK, (class E?) and move towards a unified civilian ICAO approved / licensed workforce (with a reserve committment for those that want to go meet the tactical ATC requirements of Queen and country AKA NZ- after all the RAAF are planning to all but civilianise the southern Bases, via APS, during 2008- how many left in blue then? And what will be their core function? RPT into TVL or Willy??)

As an aside, always wondered why the F18s do the initial and pitch at a level 1500 at not above 420 kts! Not very tactical. Perhaps due to an IFR rule, But why IFR on a CAVOK day? In Uk all fast jets came back to the circuit at about 500 feet at anything up to 520 kts and did a climbing break crosswind to 1000 ft to wash off the speed. Any lighties about were kept out of the way by overflying at 1500 -2000 or by holding somewhere out of the way. Simple really! And thats with a sh&t load more aircraft and airspace extending basically to about 1500 ft ( protected) out to only 5 nms! Still goes on today. Risk managed of course!!

DogGone::ok:

[Gundog01]

As an aside, always wondered why the F18s do the initial and pitch at a level 1500 at not above 420 kts! Not very tactical. Perhaps due to an IFR rule, But why IFR on a CAVOK day?

Reduce noise for the residents of Williamtown, Raymond Terrace etc. And once in the circuit all FJs auto-transfer to VFR. If you need to be tactical around your op base, perhaps it's time for a retreat to a less threatened base????

Tindal is a different kettle of fish, anything goes (almost).

[Dick Smith]

BurglarsDog, thanks for your important post. I hope all Aussie air traffic controllers (both civil and military) read it and take note of your comment:

I would suggest only one thing; ATC dont have to separate VFR from IFR. In real terms this means that one doesnt have to always prove a standard…

Yes, I have found from talking to air traffic controllers in other countries this is the whole point of Class D, and also the US system in Class C – where they have merging target procedures. That is, it allows the controller to get the aircraft closer together for sighting each other. Our present “standard” which seems to be used – quite often 3 nautical miles – means you cannot see the other aircraft at this distance.

What standard are they using at Williamtown, where they hold aircraft many miles away? I heard recently of a helicopter being held orbiting at Anna Bay, which is 11 miles to the north east of Williamtown, because of a civil aircraft about to land.

The whole key of course is that a small team of Willy controllers being sent overseas, to both the UK and the US, could quickly find out if there were more efficient ways of safely moving traffic – especially when we are referring to civil traffic.

[LeadSled]

All,

LeadSled also fails to mention that the individual who raised the Australia Day incident became highly emotive himself with respect to any civilian aircraft not being able to track wherever they wanted and was not open to any suggestion that in fact a full investigation had taken place and perhaps there were indeed two sides to the matter.

Actually, my notes refer to a statement, I believe referring to the above, in strong terms about the extent of RAAF "restricted" (be it a zone or a restricted area) compared to countries with far more military traffic, which exist quite happily and safely with much smaller military control zones than the RAAF seems to need. Have a look at a standard NATO zone (RAF) or the US zones and Restricted (as opposed to MOA) airspace.

There was, as I recall, no demand to "track where ever they wanted".

As to a "full investigation has taken place" --- Caesar investigated Caesar and found Caesar had no case to answer ----- As Laurence Welke would have said: "Wuunnerfull, wuunnerfull".

The real and valid question is:

Why does the RAAF, a relatively small force, require such huge "dedicated" airspace, compared to numerically (both in aircraft numbers and operational/training activity) much larger air forces ??

"Because it has always been thus" is not really a good enough answer.

Tootle pip!!

[Pera]

As to a "full investigation has taken place" --- Caesar investigated Caesar and found Caesar had no case to answer ----- As Laurence Welke would have said: "Wuunnerfull, wuunnerfull".

If the RAAF put anytime into investigating a C182 being held, I want my defence dollars back.

[Dick Smith]

Here is some good news. I have received a number of reports that they are changing some of the procedures at Williamtown. For example, an aircraft going up the light aircraft lane was given 1,000 feet as the altitude – better than 500 feet if there is a necessity to orbit.

More importantly, aircraft have been allowed over the top. Recently a VFR aircraft was given a clearance over the top at 3,500 feet whilst three RPT aircraft were coming in. The VFR aircraft was actually right over the top of the field when one of the RPTs landed.

Congratulations to those at Williamtown who are making the changes. I “dips me lid” to you.

[ozbiggles]

The first time this has happened?
Or has it been happening for years when pilots requested it and traffic allowed????? Amazing too, that they didn't have to change airspace regulations as well to do this now....or in the past.

Note, this was written and researched by me. No third party input was required or sought. All thoughts,opinions and advice are my own. No henchman was required,paid for in part or full.

[Dick Smith]

I came down through the Williamtown airspace yesterday afternoon in my helicopter. On board were my wife and three grandchildren – one of whom is under two years old and can’t swim.

As I passed Port Stephens heading south and dropped to 500 feet, it became obvious that there were a number of IFR aircraft heading into Williamtown.

I dreaded what was going to happen, but it was not so. The friendly controller called me and advised that there was a lot of IFR traffic and I could either hold at Anna Bay or track overhead the Williamtown airfield at 1,000 feet. As holding at Anna Bay would have taken me out over a frighteningly rough ocean at 500 feet, I opted to track to Williamtown. From there I was tracked to Nobbys. It probably put a slight extra distance on my route but meant that flight safety was maintained.

The controller even apologised for the extra tracking that was required. I thanked him, and here I would like to say to whoever has made these changes, “I ‘dips me lid’ to you.”

Flying a bit of extra distance over land is always preferred to orbiting over a rough ocean with young children at 500 feet.

[Cap'n Arrr]

Was given that a few times back in the day.

Willy ATC is awesome!:ok:

[TrafficTraffic]

Flying a bit of extra distance over land is always preferred to orbiting over a rough ocean with young children at 500 feet.



Why is that Dick? I mean what are the odds of the engine failing

TT

[Dick Smith]

Traffic,the odds are very small but still worth reducing when it can be done at little expense.

By the way I understand we can thank AOPA for encouraging the RAAF to make the improvements.

[Fantome]

When Angus Houston, the then Chief of Air Force, sat with me on the Aviation Reform Group over three years ago at endless meetings

There you go Dick, you did put a flea in his ear after all. (Did he ask you to give him your autograph?)

[peuce]

.... be that as it may, I don't believe that the RAAF Controllers at Williamtown, or any Controllers for that matter, are responsible for providing clearances in direct relation to the age and swimming abilities of the passengers that you choose to transport. You ... knowing that there was a strong possibility that you might have to either track , or hold over water near Williamtown ... made the conscious decision to take those young children on board. ... pilot in command, and all that !:=

[Gundog01]

Nothing probably changed dick, perhaps the first time you were rudely told to hold was for a legitimate reason.

[Dick Smith]

Peuce, it is extraordinary how your mind thinks – it appears to be set in concrete. No, I didn’t know there was a strong possibility of being held over water, because I could simply have asked the controller for an orbit over land.

As it has been pointed out on this very thread, a pilot does not always have to accept a clearance from a controller – especially if passengers in the aircraft are being needlessly endangered.

Gundog01, you may be right, however I believe that there is a chance that the military have changed. Why wouldn’t they? Surely they have seen the error of not asking advice in losing $1 billion on the Super Seasprites. Why wouldn’t they ask controllers in other countries about better ways of doing things?

I’m hoping the culture in the military of never asking advice will change. Then large amounts of money will be saved and our military pilots will have proven aircraft to fly.

[peuce]

Dick, you're not alone ... I worry about how my mind works sometimes too :confused:

But, back to the issue ... you see, I'm still confused. You seemed to have an issue with Willy because you had a non-swimming doddler onboard ... and yet you now say that you don't have to accept a clearance over water anyway ... so where's the issue ?

Or is my mind playing tricks again ... :}

[Bob Murphie]

One hopes you mean abeam Broughton Island. I wouldn't like to swim to the coast from there. The rest makes sense. The RAAF have been very precious about their airspace for a long time.

[Gundog01]

The RAAF have been very precious about their airspace for a long time.

With good reason bob as it keeps getting chipped away at. eg civvy airliners flying through willy restricted airspace...it was sold as.... wont effect training ops in the airspace yet we have been made to restrict operations not above 15000 many times due over flying traffic.

Civvies whining about not being able to use mil airspace is ridiculous. Look at all the G class airspace out there that can be used by all and sundry, just because people want to do a scenic trip with there wife and toddlers on board dosent mean mil ATC should change procedures.

[Bob Murphie]

Gundog01;

Yes mate, I concur. However Willy has tiger country to the west and ocean to the east. The 500ft corridor is OK for fine day VFR and any western option is nothing I would contemplate SE VFR at night.

I have tracked Dubbo Bankstown NVFR direct in Richmond airspace with friendly help, over tiger country, but being watched. Makes you feel a bit better. Just co-operation really and you lot were probably in the mess anyway.

The concept of flight over the top is safe and easy to manage from an arrival and departure point of view. I have planned over Sydney, Brisbane at peak times (not recently however), and seems to be the best option unless ubrupt vertical manouvers are contemplated.

I wouldn't worry about the civvies mate, pretty soon there will be none left of the 'bottom feeders' so all you have to worry about is the regionals.

Pity really.

[bodex666]

I agree gundog01, williamtown has been a defence airfield since February 1941 and has since agreed to share its area with civilian aircraft. I also know williamtown serves as a training grounds for not only its fast jet boys and girls but its new ATC staff also, and you can often sense the uncertancy over the radio while they're watched by there trainer. But I think we sould be lucky that we can still fly into willy since 9/11, and in fact any millitary airspace as a matter of fact. I have flown into willy hundreds of times and very rarely have we been held. Of course some 'unusual' clearances appear but take it or leave it....my two cents anyway

[Silent T]

'Gundog01, you may be right, however I believe that there is a chance that the military have changed. Why wouldn’t they? Surely they have seen the error of not asking advice in losing $1 billion on the Super Seasprites. Why wouldn’t they ask controllers in other countries about better ways of doing things?

I’m hoping the culture in the military of never asking advice will change. Then large amounts of money will be saved and our military pilots will have proven aircraft to fly.'

Now, by looking at my details you can tell that whilst having been a reader of PPRUNE for quite a while, I don't post very often. And, I've been drinking and playing golf all day... but I just can't handle some of the crap that comes out of some peoples mouths.

Dick, in your time in the military, did you not see how much the military asks for other users opinions? How much money is spent by sending people overseas for that exact reason? How many people are on exchanges, and how many people do we have here on echanges for that exact reason? Plenty, and that is not just the pilots, but other members also...

Yes, the military makes some mistakes (Seasprite), but it is also a unique user. For example, who does the RAAF ask for about information on a long range BBJ, or using the same airframe for AWACS? Does QANTAS do that? Does 34 SQN already ask these people for information? I would guess yes.

When it comes to the ATC situation ,maybe they don't want to change? Yes inconveniant to you, but sometimes **** happens. Same with people complaining about the range at Willy. Its been the same for a long time. Would it be better if the military just took the airspace and made it completely a restricted area like Pearce or Sale?

I know that would cause issues, and I would not like to see that happen, but for F@#$'s sake, try and remember what they are doing there. Training fast jet pilots to do a job that you have never had the opportunity or ability to do (and I am in the second group there). Unless you move the fast jet squadrons away, the problem of having civilians hold while the fast jet guys come back will always occur, because it will only take one screw up to cause a major issue. Of course moving the jet jocks all to Tindal will screw their retention issues.

I suppose, in my semi drunken stupor, what I'm trying to say is, yes the military takes a fairly conservative view on lighties passing through Willy. You know that. Get over it and stop f$#@ing with it. And how dare you insinutate that the RAAF doesn't ask for other opinions. Just because they don't tell you, doesn't mean it doesn't happen DICK.

[Maggott17]

Hello Hands on Dick,

Please don't let your misguided aviation emotions get in the way of your PIC responsibilities when ATC directs somewhere that you think is not appropriate.

"I came down through the Williamtown airspace yesterday afternoon in my helicopter. On board were my wife and three grandchildren – one of whom is under two years old and can’t swim.

As I passed Port Stephens heading south and dropped to 500 feet, it became obvious that there were a number of IFR aircraft heading into Williamtown.

I dreaded what was going to happen"

If you KNOW, as you so often state, that Willie ATC put you out over the water....GET A FLAMING TWIN ENGINE HELICOPTER to keep your loved one safe.

All commercial pilots keep the UNKNOWN FARE PAYING PASSENGERS IN THE BACK, as safe as they would THEIR LOVED ONES.

Get the hint Hands-on-DICK, and get the bloody hell out of everyone else's AVIATION.

You are a bloody menace to normal aviation.

[Dick Smith]

Mag,I was in my Agusta 109e which is a twin. I avoid unnecessary orbiting at low levels over a rough ocean in any aircraft when I can; Most commercial pilots would do the same.

Plenty of twin engined helicopters have ditched over the years.

When the RAAF use internationally proven modern ATC procedures there is no need to hold aircraft orbiting at low levels over rough oceans.,

Try not be so angry.

[max1]

Dick,
Have you looked into the legality of Military airspace extending more than 12nm off a sovereign state. Have a look at the ICAO regs, I believe that they turn a blind eye down here because we are so far from other countries.

[Slugfest]

Diak,

Please regale us with tales of adventure and daring of flying a light SINGLE engine from Lord Howe ISLAND to the mainland and how that was safe compared to your helochopter sojourn.

…and don’t forgit to add in the bit about the bad bad naught ‘ole CIVIL ATCs who would not let you over-fly Sydney.

[ACMS]

Dick Dick Dick...................you can't be serious?

You were in a twin turbine helo and were worried about engine failure and ditching?

What about when you fly IMC over tiger country with nice big trees? Do you pee your pants then too?

get a grip young fella, maybe you'd be happy flying in a 4 engine turbine helo if they made one!!

Try flying over the North Pole on 2 GE 90's then come back and tell me how you were seriously worried east of Willie. Can't say I'm too impressed when I find myself 3 1/2 hours from the nearest rwy in Winter in my 777, but there is a risk in all Aviation pal, if you can't stand the heat get your family out of the kitchen.

You can't be serious, can you??????????????????

nah it's a wind up.:D

I would think that there is more chance of some FA 18 jock shooting you down after reading this thread than you having a catastophic double engine failure!!

[Dick Smith]

ACMS, I’ve had decades of seeing this resistance to change from people similar to yourself and the military people in Canberra only to see when changes are made how everyone then grasps the advantages.

For example, many years ago when flying from my home at Terrey Hills to the Dick Smith Electronics premises helipad at North Ryde (which was about 3 miles within the Sydney controlled airspace, but over 10 miles from the airport) I would be held at Hornsby. Sometimes I would be held orbiting for 5 minutes so I could be separated from the Channel 10 VFR helicopter, also approaching or departing North Ryde.

I worked for over 3 years in attempting to have the overseas procedures introduced in Australia. That is, in “controlled” airspace (that’s all we had in those days), VFR aircraft would not be separated from other VFR aircraft using a procedural or radar standard, but would simply be given traffic on each other.

After years of resistance from people such as yourself, it was decided that we should actually attempt this new procedure. When it was introduced, no longer did I (and others) have to hold over a built up area and schools at Hornsby, and the whole thing has worked well ever since.

It is the same with the Victor 1 lane. In the old days, if an aircraft wanted to do a flight along the coast it would require a flight plan and separation from other aircraft. I remember once being at Bondi Beach at 1,000 feet and I wanted to drop down to 500 feet where there was another helicopter. The air traffic controller – increasing his workload – directed me to fly to the Sydney Harbour Bridge so I was 3 miles from the other chopper, so it could climb and then I could return.

I proposed the Victor lane after seeing a similar lane at JFK airport in New York. It was resisted in every way, including a major campaign by ex-military man Alan Green at Qantas. He was convinced that if a Qantas aircraft taking off from 07 had an engine failure, it could drop into the Victor lane. Of course the odds of this happening without the light aircraft turning away and not running into the airliner are infinitesimal.

Eventually, after a year and a half of battling, the Victor lane was introduced, and it has been there ever since. It actually improves safety because approach air traffic controllers are not concentrating on VFR aircraft that are not collision hazards to airline aircraft.

I could give you many other examples of how concrete minded resistance to change – normally from military or ex-military people – has prevented important safety and efficiency improvements.

My post was praising the Williamtown controllers for sensibly allowing me to overfly the airfield rather than having me orbit and waste even more fuel over a rough ocean at a very low 500 foot level. There are times when it is difficult to minimise risk, but when it is easy (i.e. with modern internationally proven procedures that reduce the loading on air traffic controllers) why not use them?

[ozbiggles]

Dick, can you come around and paint my house
You have such a broad brush.
Its like me saying that most business people I know are idiots because most new businesses go bust?!
I do have trouble understanding how you can slander military people but then also donate to the AWM and help provide a fine memorial.
I seriously think you need to check your emotion/passion for this topic and stop slandering the people/organisation. As I've said before defence is busy at the moment... leave a nice message and maybe when the wars/police actions/peacekeeping/disaster relief/famine relief is over your 'small issue' may get the intense attention you believe it requires!
Now as for the idea of overflying what height are you suggesting you overfly at and what height should an aircraft overshooting/missed approach should stop at?

[peuce]

Dick, You said:


"My post was praising the Williamtown controllers for sensibly allowing me to overfly the airfield rather than having me orbit and waste even more fuel over a rough ocean at a very low 500 foot level."

My sick mind at work again here, but just wondering:


Is it safer to fly over a smooth ocean than a rough ocean
Is the reliability of the turbine engine in direct proportion to the roughness of the ocean below it? ... just like a piston engine is affected by flying over Tiger Country
Or, perhaps the safety of the flight is determined by the number of "white pointers" below you ... as in your flight at 500ft over Bondi Beach


Sorry, couldn't help myself.... I'm off to see my therapist :}

[OZBUSDRIVER]

A couple of e-mails, a couple of phone calls, a RAPAC meeting, a follow up visit and jobs done. And the message? Get on the blower, flight plan and get in early on the radio to give the boys and girls at Willie time to fit you in. It isn't rocket science. The gang up there at Willie are just doing a job. REMEMBER, it IS their sandpit afterall and their toys are a tad bit faster than ours. If we can just take a little time and be a bit more pro-active the wheels just get greased that bit more and EVERYONE is happy.

:ok:Great effort people:ok:

[newsensation]

Newcastle a defence base, not commercial

Steve Creedy | June 27, 2008

NEWCASTLE Airport is rapidly approaching the point where it will be incapable of absorbing additional commercial operations, the RAAF's incoming deputy chief has warned.

Air Commodore Geoff Brown, who is due to take over as Deputy Chief of Air Force from Air Vice-Marshal John Blackburn, warned at this week's Waypoint conference that commercial interests needed to temper the expectations for the facility.

The comments are another nail in the coffin of a briefly floated NSW proposal to develop Newcastle as a second Sydney airport.

Commercial flights at Newcastle Airport use the the Williamtown RAAF base runway and the air force is becoming increasingly sensitive to additional demands for commercial access. It has seen an escalating number of requests from airlines to expand the operational window allowing civil movements between 6am and 10pm.

Air Commodore Brown said the facility was effectively home to four fighter squadrons, including Hawk lead-in fighter squadron, and these would be joined by No2 squadron operating airborne early warning and control.

It also supported the Forward Air Control Development Unit operating PC9s.

Significant money had been spent recently on expanding Williamtown to support the AEW&C and Hawk facilities.

"As I stated previously, Williamtown is a defence base, established for defence operations," Air Commodore Brown said. "In its present state, like any other air field, it has finite capacity and I believe that we are rapidly approaching the point where the airfield will be incapable of absorbing additional commercial operations."

The NSW report, commissioned by Premier Morris Iemma and compiled by the chairman of Events NSW, John O'Neill, recommended building a fast train service linking Sydney and Newcastle to service an expanded international airport and said the needs of the RAAF would have to be managed appropriately.

Air Commodore Brown said he had no doubt that Williamtown could handle additional traffic if a proposed second runway and necessary terminal infrastructure were developed.

But he said this was an issue for government and warned that any such decision would need a thorough examination of the potential impact of any such development on RAAF operations on the ground and in the air.

"As an example, if Williamtown was to become a major international airport, what expectations would this generate with respect to the development of inbound and outbound air routes, which would necessarily be through areas where we would conduct most of our training.

"I'm of the opinion such an outcome would debilitate our capacity to train and, by extension, have unacceptable and deleterious affect on our operational capacity as an air force."

Air Commodore Brown also warned there was no magic bullet to solve airspace problems involving the need to strike the right balance between commercial interest and the ability of the RAAF to do its job.

He predicted pressures on airspace would increase as new aircraft such as multi-role tanker transport, the AEW&Cs, the Super Hornet and the Joint Strike Fighter came into service.

He warned against the belief that concepts such as flexible use of airspace (FUA) were waiting to be plucked off the shelf.

"Unfortunately, while concepts like FUA could well be achievable in future, there will be a requirement for significant advances in associated technologies, as well as the regulations, standards and procedures needed to underpin any such concept," he said.

I think it's time to move the RAAF base to say Evens Head, and let Newcastle Airport become the regions Second Major International Airport!, If the government has to build and pay for a second airport why not make it one for the RAAF....

[Pera]

I think it's time to move the RAAF base to say Evens Head, and let Newcastle Airport become the regions Second Major International Airport!, If the government has to build and pay for a second airport why not make it one for the RAAF....

The govt doesn't build and pay for civilian airports anymore. They sell them.

Why should the taxpayers give up a RAAF base to a civilian airport operator. If more capacity is required, they can pay for a 2nd runway or another greenfield airport. The govt isn't in the airport business anymore and shouldn't be giving up strategic assets to private companies.

The taxpayer cost to establish an alternate RAAF base is unjustified.

[Dark Knight]

NEWCASTLE Airport is rapidly approaching the point where it will be incapable of absorbing additional commercial operations, the RAAF's incoming deputy chief has warned.

Air Commodore Geoff Brown, who is due to take over as Deputy Chief of Air Force from Air Vice-Marshal John Blackburn, warned at this week's Waypoint conference that commercial interests needed to temper the expectations for the facility.

The comments are another nail in the coffin of a briefly floated NSW proposal to develop Newcastle as a second Sydney airport.



And rightly so therefore. Dick you can look forward to a lot more holding over and around Williamtown in the future!!!

DK

[newsensation]

I don't believe for one minute the government would give away Newcastle Airport! the money made from the sale of Newcastle Airport would pay for a new facility for the RAAF.

[Dick Smith]

Dark Knight, you state:

Did you get the message Dick?

I’m not sure what message you are talking about. What I’m stating – with no understanding from you – is that procedures used at Williamtown were originally developed in probably the 1940s or 1950s. If the Williamtown controllers were allowed to look at what happens in other countries (especially North America – both the USA and Canada) they would see that by introducing modern procedures they could handle the additional traffic in a very safe and efficient way.

VFR aircraft transiting the airspace do just that. They are not actually landing or taking off, so it is not a runway capacity problem.

Also, the times I have been held are for “separation” from civilian aircraft, not military.

As I have mentioned before, such modern procedures as “green in between” and “target resolution” would make the whole operation more efficient. I’m happy to cover the cost of a Williamtown controller travelling to North America and seeing how modern military Class C airspace is operated there.

[777Alzheimer]

Hey, Dick.
What is your obsession with North America.
Any professionals who has operated there knows their system is far inferior to the old Aussie system, unless you are a private pilot in a helicopter, who is getting in the way of the real pilots.

We now have alphabet soup airspace, identified by colours (Why isn't it Blue airspace or Green airspace) and typical American terminology that doesn't even hint at the function of what it is labeling.
I know what Melbourne Control does. What does Melbourne Centre do. Is the centre for tomato growers, nudist.

Next you will be wanting us to "Request lower.", to which you will want ATC to reply, "Expect lower momentarily."

Thanks Dick.

[Gundog01]

Dick if north america is so great for flying.......move there

[Pera]

Dick,

I'm sure WLM controllers would be able to handle separating aircraft according to class D procedures... if their airspace was class D.

Since it's class C, perhaps you need to get some of your pollie friends to go overseas and see how it's done. They are the ones that decide on the class of airspace.

You owe the controllers an apology for you continued insinuations. They would loose their licences if they used the procedures you suggest.

Pera.

[Spodman]

You owe the controllers an apology for you continued insinuations. They would loose their licences if they used the procedures you suggest.
Correct, and I find it infuriating when somebody uses operational radio as a soapbox in these matters, the people being subjected to such political diatribes indeed don't have the option of doing anything about it. It is the equivalent of getting out of your car and haranging a traffic light saying, 'red lights mean go if you want to in North Carolina if it is a sunny day, why can't I here!' As I have mentioned before, such modern procedures as “green in between” and “target resolution” would make the whole operation more efficient. Well, no. Virtually no effect on the whole operation (by which you mean the whole airspace system I expect), but yes, I see benefits in this airspace. But you need to bring it on, If I just implement it myself in my C airspace I'll be told to sit in the corner with the pointy hat again...

[Trojan1981]

Dick if north america is so great for flying.......move there
Is that comment the online equivilient of the 'Australia, love it or leave' bumper sticker? Thats a bit of southern-american style, bogan over patriotism we don't need.

I think it's time to move the RAAF base to say Evens Head, and let Newcastle Airport become the regions Second Major International Airport!, If the government has to build and pay for a second airport why not make it one for the RAAF....

How about moving the RAAF to Nowra? Two runways, two airports (if you include JB) plenty of airspace and a ready made bombing range. The place is under utilised these days. No need to build new airport. Leave Newcastle for commercial ops.

[Gundog01]

No need to build new airport. Leave Newcastle for commercial ops.

No need to move 4 fighter squadrons, an AWACs squadron an ECSS, boeing maintenance facilities from a RAAF base at all. Civvies need to learn that they are guests at Willy town - at least until the Labor government rips the heart out of the ADF.

[Trojan1981]

No need to move 4 fighter squadrons, an AWACs squadron an ECSS, boeing maintenance facilities from a RAAF base at all. Civvies need to learn that they are guests at Willy town - at least until the Labor government rips the heart out of the ADF.

Civil aviation is growing and The RAAF is shrinking. By the time the F-35 is introduced the RAAF will be lucky to even have four fast jet squadrons. An international airport would provide a massive kick to the local economy and a fast train lnk to Sydney would receive overwhelming support from Newcastle commuters. The only other realistic option is CB.

Thread drift anyway.....

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I cannot believe I am reading this:eek:

[dodo130]

Mr Smith,

Having to hold at Nobby's is just a part of abiding to airspace regulations in Australian airspace.

Regardless of the fact that you've piloted a helicopter to the north pole and read countless Biggle's adventures. RULES APPLY FOR A REASON!!!!!!

Those of us that are fortunate enough to be operating an aircraft around Nobby's must know well in advance that a run down the coast crosses the the extended centreline of RWY12. Taking off in a C17 or microlight or F18 or B737, I would not want traffic crossing my pass from below.

Yes, the boys boys at Albury and Coffs do a good job managing their airspace. But comparing that to Willy.... enough said.

And by the way, poor form for having a cheap shot at AH.


Ps. Hats off for the Balls Pyramid expedition take II.

[james michael]

Dodo

Good points.

I am certain I saw in my last association magazine a big insert by the RAAF (negotiated by them and the association) to encourage and expedite clearances direct across the top of WM wherever possible and avoid the holding.

From memory it needed early advice, not surprising.

I think it demonstrates the value of such issues being canvassed via commonsense minds in meetings that are based on safety outcomes - as happened.

[OpsNormal]

Gundog01 wrote: Civvies need to learn that they are guests at Willy town - at least until the Labor government rips the heart out of the ADF.

Gundog, could you remind me just who the RAAF reports to? Oh yeah, the government of this country..... Now just who does the government ultimately answer to? Oh yeah, the people of this country.... So it stands to reason if the people of this country need to utilise the Williamtown airspace as the population expands to cater for its needs then RAAF Willy will need to get the message and move with the times.... You are effectively a function of the public purse and are (ultimately, if not directly) answerable to the public.

I know how it feels to see a McDonalds restaraunt standing on what was my unit's HQ.... Why, because the public wanted/needed it. Who knows why.

Now where is that monkey (P_A_F), I need to shoot at something..... :E

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

:} .. ah dear ..... :ok: .... Op'sN .... dito :E

[blackbandit]

Dick is a rooster.

[Dick Smith]

The “A team” must have been on at Williamtown today. I would like to thank the controllers concerned. I was transiting from the north to the south through the lane, with 5 people on board the Agusta A109, including 3 children below the age of 6.

When I received my clearance at Broughton Island, it was the typical clearance to report at Port Stephens Light at 500 feet. The problem was that there was a 45 knot sou’westerly blowing over the headland at Port Stephens. The turbulence would have been very uncomfortable.

Remember, a little over a year ago, a young pilot ended up with his Cessna 152 in the water in similar winds – luckily living from such an ordeal.

I was just about to request a higher altitude when the friendly controller came back and said that as there was a strong sou’westerly, and there would be turbulence at Port Stephens Light, I was re-cleared to fly at 2,000 feet. The same clearance was given to another aircraft following.

This is excellent, especially when you consider that only a week ago I was told by a regular flyer of the lane that holding at Anna Bay has been worse than ever.

Remember, I have always said our controllers are as good as any in the world – it’s the leadership that is lacking as it resists change.

[AirlinePirate]

with 5 people on board the Agusta A109, including 3 children below the age of 6.

Arr.

Did yer be hangin' one of them "Baby On Board" signs in yer window?

Arr.

[mjbow2]

The first and only time I have been into Williamtown was a couple of months ago in a 737. I was pleasantly surprised to find that we were given a radar service from Willie approach until the FAF. That is to say we flew overhead the airport at aprx 6000ft for the full procedure before being handed off to the tower once established inbound.
This is the kind of radar service we could use at places Ballina, Hamilton Island and heaven forbid Launceston.

Departing from Maroochydore airliners often we have to level off at low level while still within the confines of the Class D tower airspace out to 8nm at low level only to be 'blocked' from making a redundant 'departure' call due tower frequency congestion.

Then due to the resultant delay from tower handing us off to Brisbane approach, we are forced to fly into class G airspace, which is in fact covered by Bris approach radar. This is a great example of why we should consider reducing the size of the tower controlled airspace and give it to the guys with the radar and giving the radar guys terminal class E instead of G, so they can give an IFR service.

What about giving radar services much closer to the airports, like they gave us at Willie. What do others think?

[Mr Brewster]

Civvies need to learn that they are guests at Willy town

Hmm. Now while I don't have an issue with 'shared' airports like Tvl, or for that matter ops at Wille comments like this smell of military arrogance (and I was one once).

In my view the military needs to:

1) Remember who pays the bills, and
2) Bear in mind that once a defence force causes more damage to the economy than it is worth, it is in peril.

Mr B.

[Jabawocky]

And the military are guests at far more civvy aerodromes:}

I wonder do they pay landing fees at all the council run strips etc?

mjbow......... you emntioned Class E wrt D to C on a thread of Dicks:eek:

Incoming:uhoh:

[ozbiggles]

Jabawocky
Yes they do pay.....got any other things you would like me to correct for you?
Mr Brewster
What is the cost to the economy if your military that you pay for can't do the job because it apparently does more harm to the economy than its worth. Use World War 2 as an example in your reply.
I guess you don't have any insurance because you probably won't ever need it.
mmmm, cranky tonight best I have a beer.

[Howabout]

Ozbiggles is correct, I believe. From discussions with AAA members it seems that the military pays for the use of those airports on the basis of 'fair wear tear'. As for Mr B, I suspect it's just a red too many - he doesn't seem like a bad bloke.

[Mr Brewster]

Defence forces can do what they do essentially in 2 ways. Via 'exclusive' access which is the 'good old US of A' model, or via shared access.

This relates to all things, land, seaways, airports etc.

In Oz, the models are generally shared, and as such (and like in WWII) the community shares the resposibility of defence. This is because we are simply too small to have the duplicated infrastructure the US has.

In my comment I stated the 'shared' airports i have operated from, darwin and Tvl, work really well. I wasn't actually criticising the system at newcastle, except I think it is too tightly controlled and could be open to more traffic. What I criticised was the 'remember civvies are guests' comment, which I found arrogant and misdirected.

There are 'special' areas that cannot be shared, obviously. But Willietown, Richmond and even places like Amberly and Pearce are probably not amongst these.

[Captain Sand Dune]

There are 'special' areas that cannot be shared, obviously. But Willietown, Richmond and even places like Amberly and Pearce are probably not amongst these.


When was the last time you flew into Pearce during the week?:eek: You sure you want lighties mixing it with a circuit full of PC9s, PC21s and Hawks?

[Bob Murphie]

When was the last time you flew into Temora during a flying weekend? Lighties mixing it with a circuit full of Canberra bombers, jets and Spitfires, is quiet normal.

[Mr Brewster]

CSD

Who mentioned lighties??? Twas not I :) Shared can mean many things, in Tvl I 'mix it' with a circuit full of FA-18s quite regularly and with good ATC, uneventfully.

In the 'olden days' it was a regular occurence for lighties to 'mix it' with a circuit full of Mirages, including drogie vans on the runway, and again with good ATC, quite uneventfully.

Pearce is possibly at the extreme end of the 'possible' range, but Amberly and Edinburgh are essentiall dead these days and Willietown is a lot like Townsville.

What about Holsworthy??? Or Jervis Bay. Or Nowra. Pretty much empty of air movements but still 'locked' to the general public.

Why is that???

[Gundog01]

Yeah Brewster I'll take a hit for the earlier comment.

But

Willietown is a lot like Townsville

This couldn't be further from the truth. Having flown extensively at both i can assure you that they are not the same. Townsville is almost exclusively civilian with 5avn and 38sqn playing second fiddle to civvie ops, and thats okay by me. Same at Darwin go for your life.

I think it is too tightly controlled and could be open to more traffic.

But diluting the Willietown airspace with more RPT and throw on top of that lighties who might want to fly over just for a look or to say they flew with some Hornets is not gonna work.

Have Holsworthy, have Jervis bay, have Richmond and please take Nowra, but leave the two premier fighter bases, the largest soon to be super base and three of the busiest training bases in the country alone.

[Mr Brewster]

Gundog

Fair deal. Where do I send the contract :E

Can I have Sherger too, just on weekends in the dry season.

[Baz01]

Hi Dick, with all the media attention focused on this missing A/C MDX now is a good time as any to get a forum going and place all the cards on the table and try solve the MDX mystery and perhaps change a few thing for the better when it comes to safety. I met Ken Price in the 90's when I operated out of Bankstown.

I could not help but be moved by his story and as a direct result I conducted a detailed private investigation into the incident and conducted a private air search for MDX. From what I remember there was a radar contact with MDX last known position 90 seconds before impact. Which gives a refined search area.

One thing that I feel every investigation has missed to date. If you listen to the audio transmission from MDX and you are experienced on the aircraft type C210 I think you can hear the cabin door pop ajar due to dynamic airflow over the air frame which could indicate high airspeed and given the circumstances a very high probability of a grave yard spiral.

I suspect MDX has banked either right of left without an AH as the vacuum pump was US and it last resting place is close to it last radar lock. I recall working out the rate of decent for it last known altitude and taken into account the height of the terrain in the area and the rate of decent was consistent with a spiral dive.

The pilot’s voice sounded like it was also operating under high G load which is also consistent with the grave yard spiral theory. Also I have somewhere in my files a statement from a Captain flying a RPT in the area that night expressing his view that the RAAF controller actions was a major contributing factor to the cause of the crash.

This is not about bashing the RAAF but trying to learn from past mistakes and prevent history from repeating itself.
Regards

Baz01

[Dick Smith]

Baz. Why was the aircraft over the Barrington tops instead of the more direct and safer route down the coast?

One reason alone- the RAAF airspace in the area.

If it was designed like the US or UK military airspace aircraft would be able to overfly above 5000'.

I wonder how many more lives will be lost before the military adopt the most modern airspace design and procedures.

[Wally Mk2]

'Baz' I would imagine that the authorities woud have covered all of what you say as to the A/C's plotted trk from it's last +ID. Remember that the C210 which has a lousy Turb Pen Spd might very well have lost both wing panels (hence possibly that 'pop' you heard) & gone in at a very high speed like an arrow & disappeared below the dense jungle leaving little to no trace of broken upper foliage lost forever (as we know thus far)especially if the point of impact was on a steep slope, highly probable. The two wing panels may have floated for some distance well away from the main wreckage & indeed we may not actually be looking for a whole aircraft as we know it.This could also account for why there was no fire or one that could be seen anyway 'cause if the wings had been torn off there would have been stuff all fuel to feed a fire upon impact, all guessing of course but plausible.

God I wish it could be found for all concerned.

Wmk2

[004wercras]

Hi Dick,
Mate, just a suggestion. You are very very passionate about this topic, which is excellent. Add to that passion of yours the hard earned wealth that you have accumulated and then add again the apparent knowledge, skill and background of some of the other posters on this site and you have the potential to secure a formidable team that could come together, combine their knowledge and skills, then along with Dicks willingness to finance a search and/or new investigation could see this debate put to bed by having the mystery potentially solved? If that were the case you could probably then pen a book about all of this Dick, and recover some of your outlay? This is a serious suggestion, not a piss take. You are probably one of the very few who could pull this off. I am sure some of those who are overtly passionate about this particular accident would be willing to contribute some of their personal time. And perhaps some other sources would chip a few dollars into the tin to help out.

The greater satisfaction would come from solving this mystery and helping grieving families and their friends find closure. No amount of money is too much when humans are involved. Would you consider it Dick?

[Jinglie]

You are probably one of the very few who could pull this off.

Keep having a go at yourself "mate"! Im sure you can pull it off yourself.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Why was the aircraft over the Barrington tops instead of the more direct and safer route down the coast?
Why did the pilot not wait the few minutes and get a clearance through the airspace?
Knowing that the aircraft’s gyro systems were suspect, why did the pilot nevertheless elect to continue at night over inhospitable terrain?
Given the forecast bad weather and the fact that the aircraft instrumentation was known to be unreliable why did the pilot launch in the first place? MDX was not denied access through Williamtown's airspace, he was instructed to remain OCTA until a clearance was available.
Keep having a go at yourself "mate"! Im sure you can pull it off yourself.
I do not agree with Mr Smith’s view of Australia’s airspace construct either, but there’s no need for that.
May be four years late, but as I'm sick of 'RAAF bashing':
When was the last time you flew into Temora during a flying weekend? Lighties mixing it with a circuit full of Canberra bombers, jets and Spitfires, is quiet normal.
Have done on numerous occasions, in ‘lighties’ and in aircraft that move a damn sight faster. On every occasion I have flown in and out of Temora during an air show weekend, ‘visiting’ aircraft had a ‘no later than’ time for arrival and a ‘not before’ time for departure. The Canberras, jets and Spitfires (ie the Museum aircraft) are flown by experienced pilots conforming to strictly applied procedures in good weather. No non-museum traffic is permitted when the air show is in progress. Unless your name is Lowy! Hardly ‘mixing it’, is it?
What about Holsworthy??? Or Jervis Bay. Or Nowra. Pretty much empty of air movements but still 'locked' to the general public.
The airspace at Holsworthy, Jervis Bay and Nowra is active when it’s needed and the de-activated. How is this ‘locked’ to the general public? What about the permanently active restricted airspaces around such non-military facilities as Parkes, Narrabri, Tidbinbilla or the Warrambungles?

[Jenna Talia]

What about Holsworthy??? Or Jervis Bay. Or Nowra. Pretty much empty of air movements but still 'locked' to the general public.
The airspace at Holsworthy, Jervis Bay and Nowra is active when it’s needed and the de-activated. How is this ‘locked’ to the general public? What about the permanently active restricted airspaces around such non-military facilities as Parkes, Narrabri, Tidbinbilla or the Warrambungles?

I think he means that private aircraft are not permitted to land at those aerodromes. I've experienced that myself.

[Captain Sand Dune]

OK, well I took Brewster's comments as referring to flight through the associated restricted airspaces.
However considering the case you mentioned of a non-military aircraft landing at these airfields, yes it can be done given prior permission as detailed in ERSA. There are some non-military airfields that require prior permission before landing as well.

[Duane]

As a Sydney controller, im sorry but holsworthy constantly has 6000 codes buzzing in there, the majority of it would be within the class C steps anyway, lighties out of bankstown wanting to use that particular corridor of airspace even with no holsworthy there, sorry but you arent getting a clearance, bigger fish to fry.

With regards to Willie, with international flights starting next year, the airport is going to get busier rather than quieter, RPT aircraft already struggle to meet the 9000 foot step at 25 DME into WLM as is, if anything, the domestic part of the airspace will have to be increased as time goes on.

WRT the recent Channel 7 documentry, I have no clue how any reasonable pilot looks at the scenario that happened and thought the PIC's actions were reasonable. I am sorry but he crashed due to his actions and poor risk assessments, not ATC's lack of a clearance.

Having worked at WLM, the only time I have ever seen a clearance denied (or been told to deny by higher ups) was when there was a sequence happening and clearance for said aircraft would have required the sequence to stop. Obviously that doesnt happen, AIP heirachy of priorities needs to be applied and as such, unplanned VFR aircraft are extremely low on the priority scale at WLM or any controlled airspace, basically, if you havent taken the time (and courtesy) to let me know you are coming, I can just as easily sherk my responsibility and deny you a clearance.

Lastly, having seen this thread necro'd and with DS's gripe at not being able to fly his citation in RVSM airspace because he doesnt have ADS-B and wantint to inconvenience every other airspace user whilst he gets what he wants, havent we worked out that Dick is the biggest forum troll on this forum? He does things just to get a reaction, he doesnt get the reaction he wants to he goes running to any poor news source that will publish what he says.

Dick Smith knows absolutely zero about modern day aviation, please ignore him.

[Atlas Shrugged]

Well said.

[Dick Smith]

Duane. I have received an email from a pilot who flys regularly through the Willy coastal lane ( or attempts to !)

He claims that in the last two years 90% of his flights have been held between 5 mins and 30 mins.

Drive you insane this would. If the RAAF followed the CASA recommendation of four years ago it would be D airspace and holding would be dramatically reduced.

But no one can make a decision. I bet the morale is low.

[dubbleyew eight]

Dick Smith knows absolutely zero about modern day aviation, please ignore him.

according to the register Dick Smith owns and flies an aircraft in just about every category going.

I counted 6 aircraft on the register.

Duane are you sure you aren't part of the problem??

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Wow:ooh: Six year old thread...

[Aussie Bob]

if you havent taken the time (and courtesy) to let me know you are coming, I can just as easily sherk my responsibility and deny you a clearance

Intereesting comment Duane, how long does it take you to write up a flight strip? What is the difference between say lodging a plan and calling you say 10 minutes out from a VFR reporting point.

Other controllers I have spoken to say a VFR flight plan makes very little or no difference to availability of a clearance, what's your problem?

How often do you sherk your responsibility?

Do you fly yourself? Flown around the world? Hold fixed and rotary wing licenses? Do tell.

[Jack Ranga]

If you are letting a TAAATS ATC know you are coming 5 miles before the boundary and you don't have a plan in the system, it's unlikely you'll get a clearance without some sort of delay.

It takes time to put your plan in the system, especially if the ATC is a bloke with fat fingers. If the ATC has higher priorities, i.e. Processing medical traffic, vectoring, sequencing or separating, like it or not, you are at the bottom of the queue.

How hard is it for you to put a plan in? If I can do it on an iPad in the cockpit anybody can. A little less whining, a little more self education will make both our jobs easier :ok:

[Aussie Bob]

Sorry Jack, that is not the point. Cleared to Enter sums it up better, here is a guy who admits he can sherk his responsibility. Is ATC there to help pilots or is it the other way around?

Is putting a plan in the system via Ipad always a good thing to do in a cockpit?

[Jabawocky]

Gidday Bob,

See if you can get a peak at the system from the other side ;) Surely educational visits can be arranged for VIP's like yourself. :ok:

[500N]

Why not just write a nice letter to the Base Commander, outlining the recent media issues and ask to discuss them openly and nicely and see the "other side" with no hidden agendas and no hyped up media publicity.

[le Pingouin]

Bob, the emphasis is on the "pilots" plural, not just each individual pilot. It's a team sport, something many pilots just don't seem to get.

Clearedtoreenter, if you're doing something that's different to what everyone else is doing, say flying from A to B when everyone else is arriving and departing of course you're going to get dicked around. It's far easier (thus safer) to move one aircraft out of the way than moving a dozen around the one.

[Aussie Bob]

See if you can get a peak at the system from the other side

Ah but I do Jabba, often, and it is these good folk on the other side who tell me VFR plans for folk like me who are happy to step under CTA and call approaching the nearest VFR point are largely pointless. BTW I am not saying this would get me into Sydney or Melbourne at my convenience, but it has got me into both with minimum delay in the past.

And for the record, I have never had problems with ATC anywhere and never really understood pilots who have. BUT this does not mean I think the system is perfect. Holding at Nobbys for ages is a case in point.

[Duane]

Aussiebob and cleared to reenter...

Never said I have denied a clearance..you quote mined my response to get a comment you then took out of context. I was merely expressing my frustration at pilots who dont take the 2 minutes it requires to enter a flight plan but expect ATC to do it for them when they want a clearance (with no delay!), its not just writing up a strip, it processing that info into the system. If you flight plan, the data is already in the system, and a strip just gets printed, its that easy...just a handful of keystrokes and all your info is there.

I can deny a clearance due workload; you increase workload by not flight planning, I have never done that to an aircraft who hasnt flight planned because of my own professional responsibility, I was making the point that I could and I could justify it (6 aircraft on frequency..... and then have to enter flight plan details whilst controlling the other 6....could happen!)

If you get delays at wlm its for 2 reasons.. no strip because a plan hasnt been entered and doing it manually can take a few minutes and if you are coming from the north, comms are often poor. Second reason to hold is because of a separation requirement. Radar contact can be lost down the coast so we cant use that standard with arriving and departing traffic. Holding at a point plotted procedurally clear is the only option until another form of separation exists.

You could get for either or both reasons.

I dont understand why pilots dont wish to file a plan on the ground when it could save them time they are paying for airborne. not only will it save you time airborne, it could save your life one day.

This thread started because Dick Smith was cranky about being held to ensure Australian Aviation separation standards were being applied to him to keep him you know.... safe, he has since switched his argument that the separation standards being applied here are too cumbersome and impact too much on GA, cant say I disagree with him on that front, but attacking the people who control, who are there and licensed to meet those standards (and get stood down from control if they dont) is ridiculous. The RAAF isnt to blame, WLM leadership isnt to blame controllers arent to blame, rules are rules, they are there to be followed, the controller, the wlm det and the airforce has no choice but to enforce these standards. WLM runway is about 2nm from the coast, what separation would you like controllers to employ in order to process you through final approach or departure track? If you want to change separation standards, lobby CASA.

If you want to change the separation standard to 1nm, you are barking up the wrong tree, RAAF has nothing to do with it, they hold no power when it comes to separation of non military assets, separation is already relaxed with the coastal route and military traffic as the mil jets are considered VFR on departure and arrival in VMC (sep not required traffic only).

Dick, making WLM class D would undoubtedly make coastal clearances more forthcoming, but would make WLM airspace a lot more unsafe in my opinion, not many jetstar or virgin pilots would be happy with the change.. not exactly greater change for the most people and the most good on that front..

[Eyrie]

Dick, how do I send you an email off group? We have a potential problem here in the Darling Downs.

[Dick Smith]

Duane. Gatwick is class D. Ballina is class G and somehow airline jets cope there.

Controllers can operate D like C if they want to separate VFR from IFR .

Some controllers like the fact that D helps reduce rediculous situations like holding VFR planes 12 miles out when safety does not require this.

Eyrie. Give me a call on 02 9450 0600 or [email protected]

[Jabawocky]

Eyrie
Dick, how do I send you an email off group? We have a potential problem here in the Darling Downs.

You did not until the Wagners Wellcamp airport was built. Do not get me wrong, I am in favour of Wagners Airport. I am also severely disadvantaged by the new RA2 airspace, even IFR, if I want to do the same YCAB-YDAY that I once did.

Now I must do it at A100 and then once passed the boundary do a crowbar descent. Literally.

But hey, the Army gave up almost half their patch, so fair is fair. I lose.

This is not the end of the world, their airspace is pretty damned small compared to Willytown.

Some big gains in the region, some small annoyances. Lets disband the ADF altogether shall we? :hmm:

[Jack Ranga]

Sorry Jack, that is not the point.

Well, it kind of is the point.

Cleared to Enter sums it up better, here is a guy who admits he can sherk his responsibility

No, it didn't come across well did it! But is probably more a reflection of the frustration felt when you get these requests.

Is ATC there to help pilots or is it the other way around?

Priorities mate, we're not there to put flight plans in for you when you are too lazy too or just couldn't be arsed. Most don't mind doing it when they've got the time.

Is putting a plan in the system via Ipad always a good thing to do in a cockpit?

Ahhh...............why wouldn't it be?

[Jack Ranga]

it is these good folk on the other side who tell me VFR plans for folk like me who are happy to step under CTA and call approaching the nearest VFR point are largely pointless.

There's a very big difference between lobbing up at a Class D approach point without a plan & requesting a clearance from a TAAATS controller through Class C airspace.

It doesn't matter how many times a controller posts on here telling you if you rock up 10 miles before the boundary without a plan and he/she is busy, you're the lowest priority. Simple. Understand how the system works and you'll get a lot more out if it.

[Jabawocky]

Simple. Understand how the system works and you'll get a lot more out if it.

So Simple even I can follow it. :ok:

Or, if no plan, call a lot sooner on CEN for VFR FF, and 98% of the time that will get you in the system and processed as they have lots of warning before handover.

Did someone say simple?

[LeadSled]

Folks,
I notice, reading the minutes of the NSW RAPAC last meeting, the Willy airspace was on the agenda.
The RAAF representatives didn't even turn up.
Tootle pip!!

[Jack Ranga]

Simple Jab with a little forethought :ok: whinge if you're lazy :ugh:

[Hempy]

Simple Jab with a little forethought :ok: whinge if you're lazy :ugh:

or don't know you are near (or in...) CTA until you hit it...

[Jack Ranga]

That too!!

[Manwell]

I've been out of flying for about 10 years now, and haven't looked at PPRUNE since 2010. After reading the posts in this thread, I remember why I lost interest. Small mindedness still reigns supreme among the majority of posters here. Dick made a valid point, but instead of trying to debate that point, emotive rhetoric is the preferred weapon, usually directed at the man instead of the subject. The world is in the mess we see today because too many have been content to accept small injustices, inconveniences, and inefficiencies, particularly if it didn't impact upon them personally. For your own benefit, don't bother responding violently to this post, because I won't see it. Spend some time and energy on being a representative of God, because that is how many people view pilots. And stop being selfish A holes. ;)