25 years of holding at Williamtown

[Dick Smith]

Next year marks the 25th anniversary of my solo flight around the world. During that flight of over 350 hours, the only place I was held was at the edge of the Williamtown control zone – close to Newcastle, NSW. I was held there for about 15 minutes, orbiting over Nobbys at 500 feet, because a Beech 1900 or something similar was departing in an easterly direction from the airport in CAVOK conditions.

It is interesting that only a few weeks ago I was held again at Williamtown, and I have spoken to other pilots who are regularly held at Nobbys, orbiting at 500 feet. One claimed to have been held with two other aircraft – so three of them were orbiting at 500 feet inside the control zone under ATC instructions. A collision would have meant that two flaming aircraft would end up on the crowded beach at Nobbys.

You may ask, “Why is this so?” I believe it is because of an almost complete lack of leadership in the hierarchy of ATC in the Air Force in Canberra. In my experience, our military controllers are as good as any in the world. It is just that they are totally let down by people who move up into management positions and should therefore be updating the rules.

Over the last 25 years I have spoken at different times to the people in charge of air traffic control at Williamtown. They have always expressed frustration at having to hold VFR aircraft at Nobbys, but have explained that is what their rules require. It appears that when an IFR flight planned aircraft departs Williamtown (even if it is a Cessna 172) there is no way that the controller can ensure that this aircraft will reach 1,000 feet by the coast – 3 miles away. This means that there may not be adequate “separation” between the IFR aircraft and a VFR aircraft flying in the light aircraft lane at 500 feet.

I have written to the various people at Williamtown and in Canberra to no avail. There appears to be not the slightest grasp in the military that holding aircraft like this costs money and needlessly reduces safety. I can sure see why the military purchasing programs are such an enormous stuff-up if this is the calibre of their management.

About 15 years ago I was told that the procedures were going to be fixed so they were like other modern aviation countries in the world. Of course nothing happened.

A few weeks ago I was instructed to hold at Nobbys so I asked for a radar vector. You won’t believe it, the vector they gave me took me towards New Zealand out across the ocean! This wasn’t a matter of bastardry – it was simply an air traffic controller trying to comply with 1930s type rules. On this particular occasion the reason for the delay was a single regional aircraft – I think it was a Metro – about to depart from Williamtown some 8 miles away from Nobbys.

The situation can be solved by having Class D airspace at Williamtown, but the military has steadfastly refused to consider such an option. A controller told me that having Class D airspace with Class C above would be impossible to operate. I wonder if they have ever spoken to the controllers at places like Albury and Coffs Harbour?

This obstructionism can have little to do with safety because on weekends or during Christmas holidays (when there is more RPT traffic than ever) the air traffic controllers go home, the area becomes a giant CTAF, and everyone arranges their own “separation.” During these times I have never seen an aircraft holding at Nobbys – or indeed, anywhere.

Airline pilots have told me that when they depart IFR from Williamtown on runway 12, they are at least 1,500 feet when they cross the coast line, and most claim that they turn onto track before they get to the coast anyway. This means that there is no way an IFR aircraft can collide with a lighty in the lane at 500 feet.

Imagine if we ever had a war – with the present people in senior positions in the Air Force seemingly unable to make any decision which requires lateral thinking and real leadership. It would probably be like WWII, where I understand that after about 6 months of chaos, the bureaucrats who had attained high positions in the military were sacked and competent people replaced them.

When Angus Houston, the then Chief of Air Force, sat with me on the Aviation Reform Group over three years ago at endless meetings, he assured me and others that the military totally supported moving to the North American NAS system. He said that he had flown in the US and thought it was one of the best systems in the world. He was totally committed to introducing the advantages into Australia. What happened? Absolutely nothing. If the Chief of the Air Force can have no effect on getting his people to move forward to modern practices, you just wonder if anyone can.

What do others think?

[olderairhead]

Airline pilots have told me that when they depart IFR from Williamtown on runway 12, they are at least 1,500 feet when they cross the coast line

That's obviously with 2 still turning. I would hate to only have 1 working and have to contend with someone crossing my path at 500 feet.

Nobby's sounds good to me.

[OpsNormal]

Hi Dick. :}

I couldn't say why you wouldn't have been given a vector/climb clearance as each case by case clearance would obviously be different. Much of the problem for transitting VFR ops may well be that the Salt Ash range (R596) may well have aircraft on it at that time (don't always show up on the same FRQ) which may have precluded any aircraft from climbing to (say) 1500', tracking direct the field and then once the departing aircraft has established clear of, seperated and tracking away from the VFR traffic (bearing in mind Willy does have very good SSR) then re-clearing the VFR traffic back up the coast.

I agree with you. IFR aircraft get vectors around Salt Ash, why can't VFR aircraft get the same in VMC?

I guess the proximity to the RWY complex and shape of R596 makes the approach/CTR controllers life a bit difficult when looked at with the proximity of the coast (and the traffic that the coastal route takes).

Without a VFR chart in front of me (please bear with me) a suggestion might be a lane similar to the one up the back of the zone that (say) runs up the Pacific Highway to the back of Grahamstown Dam, Karuah (make the big new bridge a reporting point southbound or maybe even further north so as to co-ordinate range or cct activities?), then back towards Port Stephens or the coast. There is some tiger country in there for SE aircraft, but the exposure would be minimised.

Just a thought.

OpsN.;)

[Critical Reynolds No]

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j288/fizzychops/MichealJacksonPopcorn.gif

[Dick Smith]

Olderairhead, what are the odds of an IFR aircraft having an engine failure on take off from 12 and crossing the coast at 500 feet at exactly the same time that a VFR aircraft in the lane is at the same place? It would need the experts to look at it, but it would probably be something like the same odds as 4 engines in a 747 failing at once.

It is interesting that the late Alan Green of Qantas campaigned relentlessly against the Victor 1 lane in Sydney. His claim? It was that a 747 taking off from 07 with an engine out could drift down into the lane. Of course if that did actually happen (and it could) I would hazard a guess that if there was a VFR aircraft in the lane, the pilot may turn away from a 360 tonne heavy – just a chance!

By the way, I forgot to mention that the Williamtown airspace is Class C and extends to 24 miles in radius at ground level. That means that they capture lots of unnecessary traffic.

Olderairhead, do you realise that lots of commercial operators use that lane? By holding passengers there, people next time don’t bother to charter and possibly decide to go by road because they are wasting so much time. Also with the so-called climate change problem, surely it is better not to hold aircraft if it is not necessary.

Just a thought.

[Jet_A_Knight]

Critical reynolds number!

Your post - made my day:ok:

[Spinnerhead]

Ditto Townsville.

[ftrplt]

Imagine if we ever had a war – with the present people in senior positions in the Air Force seemingly unable to make any decision which requires lateral thinking and real leadership.

you are the first to get your nose out of shape if someone gets slanderous against you; yet you have the hide to write something like this. Pathetic.

what are the odds of an IFR aircraft having an engine failure on take off from 12 and crossing the coast at 500 feet at exactly the same time that a VFR aircraft in the lane is at the same place?

since when did 'odds' come into positive separation??

So are you saying that if this was a civilian aorport with the same geography, then lighties wouldn't get held if there was an IFR departure of 12; i.e are you are saying that the rules here are RAAF specific?

At least you called it Williamtown, as in Air Force Base and not Newcastle Airport.

[No Further Requirements]

Dick, I just sometimes don't get you. On one hand you are saying that delays by ATC while they POSITIVELY SEPARATE you are unacceptable, yet you want to institute class E pretty much to the ground in some places, causing more delays.

What am I missing?

NFR.

[Dick Smith]

Ftrplt, if what I am saying is the truth surely that is the important issue. Lots of people make statements about me on PPRuNe which they believe is the truth.

“Odds” don't come into positive separation, they come into the class of airspace that should be allocated.

Yes, I am saying that if it were a civilian airport the lighties would not be delayed. ATC would simply say to the IFR aircraft, “Requirement to reach 1,000 feet by the coast as we have VFR traffic at 500 feet.” The airline pilot could either accept the clearance requirement or advise if it wasn’t suitable.

It obviously can’t be much to do with safety because when the military decide to go home for Christmas, it is a total free for all – they don’t even have a UNICOM operating there.

I believe these people are totally irresponsible and do not have the slightest interest in the safety of typical Mums and Dads, and people who fly into Williamtown for their Christmas holidays. It is not as if they can fly anywhere else. Aeropelican is now closed so it is either Williamtown or drive on the roads.

One thing that gets me mad is the blatant untruths from these people. They have assured me over the last decade that they will be making changes, and that they agree the airspace needs to be updated. However they never do this. Why would they tell fibs in this way? Is it because they simply do not have the ability to bring in any change at all?

No Further Requirements, I am totally consistent. Positively separating IFR and VFR aircraft in the circumstances I have given is totally ridiculous. All that needs to be given is a traffic information service between the aircraft – as happens in every other modern aviation country in the world. That is, to the departing IFR aircraft, “Traffic for you is a Cessna 172 flying north over the water at 500 feet.”

Class E to the ground will only cause delays in IMC. It is as if you don’t understand that Class E, when used properly, is identical to Class G in VMC. When it comes to delays occurring in IMC, I wouldn’t want to depart in IMC if another aircraft was doing an approach in the same direction. The Class E procedures to be used by IFR when in IMC are almost identical to what responsible pilots now use when IMC exists in Class G. I have said this again and again but you don’t seem to understand it.

People constantly say that Class E will mean “one in, one out.” No it doesn’t. It only means “one in, one out” when safety requires it.

[SM4 Pirate]

I wouldn’t want to depart in IMC if another aircraft was doing an approach in the same direction. This is where E differs from G; the air traffic controller cannot give such a clearance (to depart in the opposite direction, well to the safe way) until the inbound is assured of landing; ie cancelled IFR (which is still an issue here, unlike the USA) or advising they will not be making a missed approach (will they ever do this, before almost stopping); cause the missed approach path needs to be clear from the time the approach is commenced, especially without surveillance.

One in one out will be slower in E in IMC than making a "safe" judgement call in G.

Try BTH NDBs, one in one out from the LSALT; we proved in 1992 why this was a bad thing to do, in terms of efficiency; then there is that ORG issue overlapping etc.

[En-Rooter]

Dick,

You're an id!ot, fair dinkum, haven't you got anything better to do with your time? Go and spend some time with the wife and kids for crissake :(

[chief wiggum]

Just to clarify....

25 years ago, you saw a problem (for you). You then became part of the CAA/CASA, TWICE, yet didn't fix it, now you are complaining because for the second time in 25 years you have had to hold at Nobbys?
and then you wonder why people don't take you all that seriously ???

[bigles]

Dick,
You can't always expect A Purple Airway,perhaps
a Peerage would increase your chances !!!

[Capn Bloggs]

Yeh Dick, I thought you had retired?:confused:

[No Further Requirements]

Dick, I understand class E quite well thank you very much. Tell me, if the conditions at the airport are slightly above the minima (you'll get in, but be in IMC for most of the approach), what kind of delay can you expect on departure in class E as opposed to class G? I know - lots more.

For example, an IFR PA31 on the RWY23 VOR into WG says he's at 10NM, left A040. Another PA31 calls centre and says he's ready to go to Cootamundra off RWY23. Centre has to hold him and wait for the other guy to call visual, about 2 NM from the aerodrome. In the meantime, in class G, the other PA31 could have launched off to the north knowing that the other aircraft would not do a missed approach and thereby be satisfied that although they are both in IMC, there is no collision risk.

Centre, however, has to delay the guy on the ground as they have nothing but procedural standards to rely on as the radar coverage is down to A030 at best.

Now, I ask again, am I missing something.

Cheers,

NFR.

(Dick - I ask you not to question my knowledge of airspace - I operate A, C, E and G - just as I do not question your ability to be endorsed on multiple aircraft types. Thank you)

[tobzalp]

I think the design of the Willy zone plays a great part in this issue. There is very very little airspace to the south and south east of the runway. The circuit goes very close to the river and often downwind for right base 12 go OCTA with anything more than 1 or 2 in the sequence. Throw in a bit of action in the range to the north at Salt Ash and there is very little room to move.

[Howard Hughes]

In 25 years of aviation, I have never been asked to hold other than when proceeding directly to a capital city airport! But then again I NEVER PLAN, NOR EXPECT to transit a control zone within 5 miles of an active runway...:rolleyes:

But with respect to Williamtown, the exact same scenario you describe takes place with the zone deactivated, so why not when it is active!;)

[ScottyDoo]

Why can't you stop meddling?

at the edge of the Williamtown control zone.... I was held there for about 15 minutes, orbiting over Nobbys ........only a few weeks ago I was held again at Williamtown .....The situation can be solved by having Class D airspace at Williamtown

So you get held twice in 25 years and the airspace needs changing?

Is this like your own special VFR lane again or something??

Interesting that they chose to hold you at "Nobbys"... :rolleyes:

[MTOW]

I see someone has beaten me to the punch, but I near burst a whoopie valve when I read what are the odds of an IFR aircraft having an engine failure on take off from 12 and crossing the coast at 500 feet at exactly the same time that a VFR aircraft in the lane is at the same place?This, from a man who once - or twice - ran our civil aviation system.

Dick, (I'm not being familiar, Mr Smith - I'm using the word in another sense altogether), that comment goes close to Bob Hawke’s “glorified bus drivers” crack back in that year we dare not mention in displaying a total lack of understanding of what we professional aviators do each day when we attempt to fly aeroplanes in as safe a manner as possible.

[olderairhead]

what are the odds of an IFR aircraft having an engine failure on take off from 12 and crossing the coast at 500 feet at exactly the same time that a VFR aircraft in the lane is at the same place? It would need the experts to look at it, but it would probably be something like the same odds as 4 engines in a 747 failing at once.

Are you for real? The chances of 4 failing compared to 1? And who said exactly 500 feet? Anyone in my takeoff flightpath at what ever possible conflicting height should not be there.

But then again do the monetary comparison between 150 plus in a jet colliding with 1 in a whatever dickmobile and I am sure the insurance bill would be horrendous for the jet.

But according to your way of thinking your operating costs are more important than the cost of 150 plus lives.

And following your example of highlighting names,.... Dick

[ozbiggles]

There is at least one 747 I know of that lost all four, are you talking acceptable losses here or affordable safety because you have to turn your aircraft in a circle?
YOU have the hide to go after people for having a go at YOU and you acuse Military people of having no regard for the safety of mums and dads and children. YOU WILL NEVER HAVE MY EAR AGAIN....

edit for induced rage spelling srrors

[ScottyDoo]

The first topic in the "Similar Threads" box at the bottom of this page shows as:


Idiot near Wiliamtown (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=268112)


Coincidence???

:D

[olderairhead]

One more thing to think about Dick, just in case you were not aware, Williamtown is a military airport.

They have jet fighters operating there. Fast ones.

Have you ever seen a jet fighter return to the circuit and do circuit entries?

They are done well below 1,000 feet at high speed and very close to the coast if 12 is in use.

Also are you aware that on many occasions they return with minimum fuel and declare a low fuel state and cannot afford to mess with anyone, including you. They have to land ASAP.

Oh, but sorry says the controller, Dick is holding at nobby's and he wants priority.

Sure thing Bud, I'll just do an eject way off the coast just to make sure he can do his transit at 500.

Oh and by the way, can you send us a rubber ducky and tell dick to have a nice unhindered flight and apologise for any inconvenience we may have caused.

And while you are at it just drop a note to the minister for defense explaining why I just disposed of a $100 mil aircraft in the ocean. When he knows it was to help dick, he will understand.

[bob55]

Out of the three RAAF joint user bases (DN, TL and WLM) WLM is the only one still classified as a MIL airfield. Your compaints about being held may be valid at DN or TL, but the aggrement to set up Newcastle Airport at WLM is so strict and conditional you don't have a right to complain. Afterall, even RPT jets get held at WLM to make way for MIL jets.

On your other point, ATC don't gamble when they separate aircraft. Odds don't come into play. Safety always comes before expedition, they don't come hand in hand. If something has the potential of causing an accident, it should be done another way. You don't have the authority to bet peoples lives on your so called odds.

[Flight Me]

You left it a mighty long time to wind everyone up Dick. Surely your not still holding on to the fact that " Mummy they made me hold at Williamtown". Honestly 25 years ago, get over it. Oh yeah, Didn't Kevin Rudd mention that rich inviduals would no longer be able to influence aviation legislation, I think he may of been referring to you. :8

By the way, I am building this kit can you remind me of the colour codes on resisters?:ugh:

[Dick Smith]

Chief Wiggum, you state:

You then became part of the CAA/CASA, TWICE, yet didn't fix it, now you are complaining because for the second time in 25 years you have had to hold at Nobbys? You and others appear to have misunderstood my post. It is headed “25 years of holding at Williamtown.” I, and others, have been held hundreds of times over the last 25 years when attempting to transit the Australian coastline at Williamtown.

I am fortunate because I can afford the extra costs, but there are others who can’t.

I look back at the letters I have received from people in the military who have asked me why their kids can’t get a job in aviation. They simply can’t link these additional costs which are applied to general aviation with the fact that general aviation is economically depressed. As I have said before, the difference between success and failure in business is often a razor’s edge.

I remember my 5 year fight back in the “Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom” days, where VFR aircraft (including helicopters) were separated as if they were IFR in all controlled airspace in Australia. I, and other helicopter pilots, would be held for 10 or 15 minutes at Hornsby, orbiting together over a built up area, so we could be let into the Sydney control zone at a 3 mile radar standard. If operating from the Darling Harbour helipad pilots were held on the ground for 15 minutes so they could be procedurally separated from one other helicopter.

I worked on this one and eventually solved it. See here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/hall_of_doom.php). Look at Chapter 6, page 39.

As you mentioned, I was involved with the CAA/CASA – not with the military. There have been some substantial changes in CAA/CASA, but as I mentioned previously there has not been one measurable change in 25 years in the way the military handle their airspace.

This may be acceptable if those in charge have said they have no plans to change, but as I have mentioned, they have constantly told me and others that they plan to make major changes and to bring our rules in line with those accepted in other modern aviation countries.

When I was the Chairman of the CAA back in 1991, I was wined and dined by the head of the Air Force, who told me of his plans to make major changes. Of course, nothing was ever done. We don’t even have Military Operation Areas and we still have illegal restricted areas over international waters.

SM4 Pirate and No Further Requirements, Australia is a sovereign country. We can set our own rules. Our GAAP airports have unique rules that result in very high levels of safety and let us lead the world. This is exactly what we must do in Class E non-radar terminal airspace. That is, if our professional pilots have developed a “standard” for separation when IMC exists in Class G, which gives a very high level of safety, we can change that to a proper separation standard for ATCs to use in Class E. Remember that the ICAO standards are set for third world countries, normally by panels of not very competent bureaucrats. Our only obligation is to notify where we are different.

Why not have the advantages of Class E airspace, with the advantages of what we do now in Class G? That is, the third party involvement of an air traffic controller when in IMC.

Tobzalp, the design of the Willy zone does play a part in the issue – that is, it is 24 miles at ground level and far too large. The times I have been held (over 100 times) have been basically when there are IFR civilian aircraft approaching or departing Williamtown. Military pilots and controllers appear to be quite happy to have aircraft flying in the light aircraft lane at 500 feet when they are operating.

MTOW, you are obviously a professional aviator but you don’t seem to understand that just about every part of aviation is designed on probability. Why else would we now have twin engine aircraft such as Boeing 767s flying the Atlantic? They are clearly not as “safe” as an aircraft with 4 engines, but probability shows that the safety is acceptable.

Are you telling me that professional pilots don’t understand and agree with this probability calculation? You lose credibility if you don’t admit to the situation that actually exists.

Ozbiggles, no, I am not talking about acceptable losses. The Victor lane has substantially improved safety. Instead of air traffic controllers at Sydney having to concentrate on dozens of VFR clearances and separating VFR from VFR (as they did in the 70s) they can concentrate on the heavy jets with lots of passengers.

The chance of a big one hitting a lightie in the Victor lane is so infinitesimal that it is better to put the resources where the risks are.

Olderairhead, I realise that Williamtown is a military airport and there are jet fighters there. But tell me – in the case of a war, won’t the fighter pilots have to look out for other aircraft? They are called the enemy.

In the case of the Williamtown lane, the fighter is given traffic on the VFR aircraft – that is what happens now – and presumably does not run into the aircraft.

As mentioned previously, the holding at Nobbys (and sometimes at Port Stephens Light) is not to separate lighties from military aircraft, it is to separate lighties from Navajos or Beech 1900s that have happened to have filed IFR on a CAVOK day.

Bob55, I can see why there hasn’t been a change made in 25 years. You state:

Odds don't come into play. I’m sure you would love to go back to the old days where we just had controlled airspace and everything was separated from each other, including VFR helicopters from VFR helicopters. We also had huge amounts of uncontrolled airspace where no separation service was given at all. Believe it or not, the international ICAO airspace system depends on “odds”– i.e. probability. It is designed to give IFR airline aircraft the same level of safety at different locations – whether it be a small airport with one service per day, or a major airport such as Sydney with many hundreds. It is all designed on probability.

Flight Me, just to confirm, I am not complaining for myself. It is the reduction in safety of having three aircraft orbiting over a built up beach where innocent people can be killed. It is also the damage that is being done to the aviation industry which can employ people – probably the children of military officers who don’t understand that their lack of decision making is one of the reasons their kids can’t get jobs.

To all the open minded people who read these posts, isn’t it interesting just how “fundamental” a small number of people are? No doubt these are the people who have closed minds and haven’t looked at how other modern aviation countries handle traffic with extremely high levels of safety, and how in other countries they look very much at cost.

[Super Cecil]

Things don't change much with prune, I see Dickbashing is still considered a valid pastime. Although now it just seems to be personal abuse.

I would agree with those who said why not just make a lane like Victor one at Willy. I've been held at Nobby's several times with little traffic. How much more traffic is there at SY than Willy? It works there.

[Start4]

Next year marks the 25th anniversary of my solo flight around the world…
I remember my 5 year fight back in the “Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom” days, where VFR aircraft…
I worked on this one and eventually solved it. See here. Look at Chapter 6, page 39.
Mr. Smith posts here remind me of Gilderoy Lockart of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. If you have read the book you may know what I mean. My young son enjoys having it read to him before bed. Young he may be but old enough to recognize Lockart for what he is.
:oh:

[Atlas Shrugged]

On the rare occasion I do fly VFR, I’ve never been held at Willy during at least the last 10 years. Not once. I’m usually up that way a few times a month. Admittedly, I never use either of the lanes in either direction – sure, it's nice flight to track coastal or bash around between the mountains of the inland lane but I no longer have the time, nor indeed the desire to be turning or climbing and descending every couple of miles.
All it takes is a quick telephone call to the controller before departure and it’s sorted.

I ALWAYS (even VFR) submit a flight plan and clearance is typically over the top at 10,000. Only once was I sent out around Gloucester or somewhere like that due fighter excersises in one corner of the zone – no big deal - it was a nice day and I enjoyed the scenery and didn't really mind the extra 6 or so minutes it took. If for some reason in the future I am made to hold, then so be it, I'll hold.

Dick, there really is no need to keep throwing your rattle out of the pram - it's becoming most tedious

[En-Rooter]

Hey, hey, Super Knob is back! Where'v ya been Knob? Dick's been missing his sycophants :ok:

[mjbow2]

As an airline pilot I used to fly into Amarillo Texas, the home of the V-22 Osprey. For several years I would fly into Amarillo several times a month and the vast majority of the time there were either a B1, F15, C-5 or similar approaching, departing or most often doing touch and goes in the traffic pattern.
The Panhandle VOR is the intersection of 10 (ten) Class E Victor Airways. See here (http://skyvector.com/#30-27-3-1036-905) with KAMA being a class C airport. Its interesting to see how similar AMA is to Williamtown with the traffic mix, with AMA having around 270 movements a day (not sure how many Williamtown has) but having much smaller class C boundaries. (5 mile ring surface to 4000ft agl, 10 mile ring 1200 agl to 4000ft and class E outside of and above the class C)
With so many private and uncontrolled Class E airports in the vicinity of AMA there is always VFR traffic transiting through class C. Its interesting to note too that VFR only need to 'establish two way coms' seeAIM 3.2.1 (http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/AIM/Chap3/aim0302.html) with the approach controller when transiting the class C.
Wouldn't it be nice if our class C was like this too? I don't think it's unreasonable to reduce the size of our class C, limit the tower controllers area of responsibility to the vicinity of the airport and give the rest to an approach controller just like the US.
If they can safely provide a VFR friendly and efficient class C airport with military and airline traffic like Amarillo in the US then we can do it here too.
MJ

[Super Cecil]

Enrooted, Gutless shrugged, you blokes nothing to do besides witless, vitriolic replies? Time for you blokes to start making grammar and spelling corrections so you can feel superior. Start 4? That you with another name enRooted? Maybe you should stick to your kiddies books.

[Tankengine]

I'm with Dick on this one.

I fly gliders in Qld occasionally and it is just stupid the way Oakey operates, restricting gliders and lighties flying through it's airspace.
They are training helicopter pilots for goodness sake, why do they need ANY airspace over 1000' on a VMC day? They are s£$%scared of a few gliders doing <100kts flying over but may be dodging Afgan ground fire in a few months!:eek: Look out the f%$%$ng window!!

Amberly and Richmond are basket cases of airspace, Richmond costs all of us tens of millions of $ per year in extra track miles into SYD. I guess Willy is the same.:mad:

[Atlas Shrugged]

Enrooted, Gutless shrugged, you blokes nothing to do besides witless, vitriolic replies? Time for you blokes to start making grammar and spelling corrections so you can feel superior. Start 4? That you with another name enRooted? Maybe you should stick to your kiddies books.

Firstly, my apologies Dick and others, I'll have to interrupt here just for a minute.

Super Cecil, I have assumed that it is me to whom you refer by the name "Gutless shrugged".

Please note that my user name is Atlas Shrugged.

Whilst it is not my direct concern, I believe that you have already done sufficient damage to your reputation as a professional by the way in which you typically choose to attack for no reason whatever, to warrant serious consideration of me pressing the Report this Post to a Moderator button.

Once again, to Dick and others, my sincere apologies for the thread drift.

[mjbow2]

I agree with you Tankengine.

We don't need to restrict VFR traffic near these airports. Its a waste of time and money. Having flown up and down the east coast of the US many time I found it interesting that one of the most common places to find VFR traffic transiting Charleston SC (Mil/Civil) was right over the top of the airport at 4500ft in Class E.
It seems strange that a country like the US can have a proven safe system whereby 4 squadrons of C-17s can operate out of the same airport with VFR/airline/military traffic exceeding 300 movements a day and we seem to be struggling to adopt it.
We are determined not to let light aircraft into the vast swathes of wasted C airspace we have here on a clear VMC day, yet we seem so enamored with sending multiple IFR aircraft into the same radar covered airspace at the same time, such as Avalon, with absolutely no separation services at all. Does anyone else see the irony of this? This is sheer stupidity.
MJ

[TCFOR]

I don't know Dick from a bar of soap, and yes, I have been retired a while now, but it seems to me that a lot of you blokes tearing him a new one must have been born with ATPL's. Unless you are ex-military, GA is where YOU originally came from, and it's in trouble. The specific issue Dick raises is merely symptomatic of the mindset that wants me to put $15,000 dollars worth of ADS-B (out) in my $20,000 Jodel, in class 'G'. Dick is right, we are unnecessarily restrictive in too many ways, and out of step with most of the world in airspace management, cut the bloke some slack.

[En-Rooter]

Start 4? That you with another name enRooted?

Nah mate, not me, only need one username for this purpose.

If you don't user correct grammar and spelling nobody will take you serious. :D

[ozbiggles]

Dick I don't give a Rats if you get held for 20 years.
What I care about is your despicable slander of military people.
Standby for further.

[scran]

Must be new rules.

When I controlled there (on 2 separate postings) only ever remember holding VFR guys in the lane when doing GCA's onto RWY 30.


And if I remember from when I scanned your book Dick - you said in the text that the only place you ever got held was departing Darwin on the same trip.

Do you change the story to suit your argument?

(PS - I flicked the book...never actually bought it.......)

[Howabout]

I'm no expert, but post the following that I dredged up from US AOPA. As I understand it, they're not exactly huge fans of the US military, so I found this interesting. Dick talks about Military Operations Areas, so I suppose this is part of what he wants. Further comment I leave to the professionals, except to highlight what I thought was an interesting statistic, 3/4ths down the article. It says that a US AOPA survey indicates that 73% of members would not fly through a Military Operating Area if they didn't know the status. What it doesn't say is that 27% would do...what? As I said, I leave further comment to those who know more than I do.


Skip to content (http://www.aopa.org/asf/hotspot/articles/low0501.html#content)
Skip to main navigation (http://www.aopa.org/asf/hotspot/articles/low0501.html#nav-main)AOPA (http://www.aopa.org/)
http://www.aopa.org/images/global/search.gif
Home (http://www.aopa.org/)
AOPA Air Safety Foundation (http://www.aopa.org/asf/)
Interactive Courses (http://www.aopa.org/asf/online_courses/)
Accident Analysis (http://www.aopa.org/asf/accident_data/)
Safety Quiz (http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfquiz/quizzes.cfm?SA=Quizzes&QuizId=Feature)
Real Pilot Stories (http://www.aopa.org/asf/pilotstories/index.html)
Safety Seminars (http://www.aopa.org/asf/seminars/index.cfm)
CFI Renewal (http://www.aopa.org/asf/firc/index.html)
Safety Hot Spot (http://www.aopa.org/asf/hotspot/)
Safety Publications/Articles (http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/)
AOPA Publications (http://www.aopa.org/pilot/)
AOPA Pilot Magazine (http://www.aopa.org/pilot/)
Flight Training Magazine (http://flighttraining.aopa.org/ft_magazine/)
E-mail Newsletters (http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/epilot/)
About AOPA (http://www.aopa.org/info/)
President's Page (http://www.aopa.org/prez/)
What's New (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newao.html)
News Archive (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/newsrvw.html)
General Aviation Information and Statistics (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/stats/statistics.html)
History and Mission of AOPA (http://www.aopa.org/info/history.html)
Meet the AOPA Management Team (http://www.aopa.org/info/manage.html)
Headquarters Tour (http://www.aopa.org/info/hqtour/)
Career Opportunities (http://www.aopa.org/info/jobs/)
Other AOPA Organizations (http://www.aopa.org/info/links.html)
Join AOPA (http://www.aopa.org/join/)
Contact Us (http://www.aopa.org/inforequest.html)http://adserver.aopa.org/adview.php?clientid=53&n=47147427 (http://adserver.aopa.org/adclick.php?n=47147427)


Flight Planning (http://www.aopa.org/flightplanning/)
Aircraft & Ownership (http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/)
Government Advocacy (http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/)
Training & Safety (http://www.aopa.org/training/)
Membership Services (http://www.aopa.org/membership/)Safety Hot Spot

How Low Do They Go?

In military airspace, when it's hot, look out

BY TIM WRIGHT (From AOPA Pilot (http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/), January 2005.)
Let's face it — 480 knots is moving pretty fast no matter where you are. But at 500 feet agl, pulling 8.5 Gs with a 70-degree bank, "pretty fast" seems something of an understatement. When the world below is slipping past your wing tips so close and so fast, you don't want unnecessary distractions. Just an additional, unintended 10 to 15 degrees of bank mean you slam into the ground in about three seconds. It's not a place for surprises or inattention.
In an attempt to get a better picture of how the military uses low-level airspace, the U.S. Air Force agreed to let AOPA tag along for a flight on VR1754, one of the many high-speed, low-level military training routes (MTRs) scattered across the mid-Atlantic coast. But with the weather over West Virginia holding a steady 300-foot ceiling our VFR plan was scrapped before we could launch from Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia.
With our original plan in the trash, my pilot and guardian from the 71st Fighter Squadron, a 20-something blond-haired, blue-eyed walking recruiting poster named Capt. Jared Santos, proposed plan B. "Vic," as he introduced himself by phone a few weeks before, said we could cancel the flight altogether or switch to the Farmville MOA (military operations area) for routine low-level training. The decision took less than a second to consider and, as plan B went into action, Vic canceled VR1754 and filed for Farmville.
The F-15 is designed to be a high-altitude interceptor. Its job is to fly high and shoot down bad guys from far away. But as most military folks will tell you, "The enemy has a vote," and he won't always fight the way you want him to. To be ready, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, and other air superiority fighters need to come down to Earth and practice combat operations in a low-altitude environment. That need is why the Farmville MOA, a golf-club-shape chunk of airspace over the rolling Piedmont of Virginia, was created.
With a full-bird colonel for his wingman, Vic leads us into the MOA with a steady step down from 12,000 feet msl to 1,000 feet agl. Radio calls to Washington Center air traffic control provide the local altimeter setting and initiate the MOA as being "hot." In honor of my civilian status, it was deemed beforehand that Vic would try to maintain 1,000 feet agl instead of the normal 500 feet and we'd slow to 420 knots from a typical 480 knots. Vic would later describe the flight as "pretty vanilla."
Once inside the MOA, Vic warns we're about to take some Gs as a "warmup" for the rest of the flight. Immediately we violently roll into a series of right and left turns. Each turn develops at least 6 Gs and as much as 8.5 Gs for as long as 30 seconds. The camera in my hand becomes nearly impossible to keep to my eye and my stomach starts working its way to my toes.
With the G warmup out of the way, we began flying what the Air Force calls "tactical turns." In short, the two aircraft take turns making high-G, 45-to-90-degree heading changes in order to check each other's blind spots with radar and eyeballs. Then they repeat the process to the opposite direction so that they snake their way across the MOA.
It didn't take too many turns before I began seeking the relief of a barf bag. Vic rolled level and called "One-Bravo is code two" over the radio to wingman Col. Creid Johnson. That told Johnson we'd be flying straight and level so I could begin heaving. A few seconds later I was in my own world when Vic's urgent voice and sharp words penetrated my consciousness. I pulled my head out of my little white bag in a futile attempt to see a Cessna that Vic had spotted cruising southbound through the middle of the MOA.
The irritation in Vic's voice as he directed my gaze was unmistakable and more understandable with my new enlightenment. At these speeds and altitudes, just avoiding the ground and your wingman is a lot of work. Add to that the need for situational awareness regarding other aircraft, navigation requirements, communications, and weapons tactics, and you've got a "task saturated" environment for the pilot.
As a general aviation pilot, I've always been too chicken to fly into a hot MOA because my first flight instructor instilled a simultaneous fear of God and MOAs — and I'm glad he did. Now I know firsthand that when a GA aircraft flies through the middle of maneuvering jets, it's like a blind man walking through traffic. With up to 20 military aircraft crammed into a chunk of sky during training for major strikes, the risk of a collision is so high for everyone that the military stops what it's doing until the GA aircraft has cleared the area.
While MOAs and MTRs are special-use airspace, they are not restricted airspace. Air Force pilots are quick to point out that civilian and military aircraft have equal rights to the airspace even when the airspace is active. "It's see and avoid," Vic repeatedly stated with a shake of his head. "Even though it's legal, it doesn't make it smart."
Vic and his fellow pilots don't try to mask their incredulity to what they see as the enormous safety risks that simultaneous military and civilian operations can create in a hot MOA. From my back-seat vantage point, where all I had to do was watch, listen, and accurately barf into my little white bag, I became acutely aware that this type of flying is enormously demanding and dangerous without including the potential aerial landmines of GA aircraft. One Langley pilot said he was convinced that the vast majority of GA pilots just don't care if MOAs are hot. However, according to AOPA surveys, at least 73 percent of the members say they will divert around MOA airspace if they're unable to learn if it is hot or cold. In fact, the inability to get information regarding the status of special-use airspace is seen as one of the biggest concerns for the GA community. With the upsurge in military training since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the problem has grown. Thankfully, because of AOPA's education and persistence, progress is being made as the military has come to understand GA concerns. Recently, the controlling agency frequencies for each slice of airspace have started appearing on new charts. Hopefully this will give GA pilots a direct link to current, real-time information. The FAA has even begun a new Web site (http://sua.faa.gov/atcaaSplash.jsp (http://sua.faa.gov/atcaaSplash.jsp)) to help notify all pilots when areas across the country are hot and when others should be (see "Consulting the AP/1B (http://www.aopa.org/asf/hotspot/articles/low0501.html#consulting)," page 75).
Whether they're flying in a MOA or along an MTR, some GA pilots assume that military pilots always see them on radar. That's a huge assumption. A busted radar is not a go/no-go decision for many missions. In fact, during our 20 minutes at Farmville, the wingman's radar was acting up and never displayed either of the two GA aircraft that flew through the MOA. Further clouding the matter is that the on-board radar is not designed to look for GA aircraft. The algorithms that control what displays on radar are written to see larger, faster-moving targets. It's entirely possible that the radar may see a GA aircraft, but not display it because of the "Ground Moving Target Inhibitor," a setting on the radar designed to filter out ground clutter. If a target is slow enough, the radar thinks it's a car or truck and won't display it.
There's also the matter of not having enough of a radar return in the first place. Gliders, Piper Cubs, and other small aircraft may not have enough metal in them to even return a signal. And if they do return, their position in relation to the radar may further reduce what little signal they have. Which takes us back to "see and avoid."
Back on the ground at Langley, Vic is at a dry-erase board with a fistful of multicolored markers. Using different colors to represent aircraft, pilot visual coverage, radar coverage, and flight paths, he sketches out a spaghetti of colored lines to diagram tactical turns. As part of the discussion, Vic stresses the importance of knowing where your wingman is at all times. It wasn't too long ago that a wingman looked down to adjust his radar during a four-ship turn and lost sight of his lead. When he looked up, he misidentified another aircraft as his lead. The ensuing collision killed the lead pilot and both aircraft were lost.
At 480 knots, an aircraft covers 8 miles a minute or 1 mile every 7.5 seconds, says Vic. With a GA aircraft crossing Vic's flight path at two miles, a distance that he considers realistic for sighting another aircraft visually in the typical mid-Atlantic haze, that gives a maximum of 15 seconds before the sky begins to rain twisted aluminum. In those 15 seconds, the GA pilot should hope that Vic isn't distracted by reading a chart, adjusting his radar, making a radio change, or any number of things. "Do the math," says Vic. "That's a short time to die."
Unfortunately for the GA pilot, his chances of seeing a military aircraft closing in on him aren't very high. Combat aircraft are deliberately painted to make them hard to see, their flight tactics are meant to make them difficult to spot, and the visibility from GA aircraft is often poor compared to that out of a military canopy. While admitting there is no way to know it for a fact, Vic and his fellow pilots are convinced that few GA pilots ever know that they — the military — are nearby.
If you spot a military aircraft at your altitude and suspect he is unaware of your presence, some suggest raising your wing to make yourself more visible. If you have enough altitude, Vic suggests you make like a bird and descend. At the speeds the military flies, you're essentially motionless to them and you're not going to outrun or outclimb them. Also, if you see one fast target moving across your windshield, a collision threat most likely still exists because combat aircraft almost never fly solo. Formations of four to eight aircraft are common, and GA pilots have been surprised to find themselves bracketed right, left, top, and bottom by passing aircraft. The military pilot's reaction, if he does spot you, should be reflexive training, and most likely he'll instinctively "climb to cope." He'll convert airspeed to altitude to give himself time to determine what is happening and what his options are. The reduced speed and higher altitude give him time to fix problems and improve his chances for a successful ejection. Last year, an F-15E on VR1752 crossed paths with a vulture at 700 feet agl near Callaway, Virginia. The bird went down the right intake and while being converted to sausage it destroyed the engine. The engine caught fire, turbine blades went flying like shrapnel, electrical and hydraulic lines were cut, and the Eagle started slowly rolling out of control to the right. After riding through a complete roll, the crew was able to safely eject partly because the pilot was able to convert airspeed to altitude.
While MOAs are clearly marked on sectionals, the thin gray lines marking MTRs can be somewhat misleading. The gray lines supposedly indicate the centerline of the route, but aircraft can be anywhere within the corridor that the line helps define. Muddying the waters, the charts don't show the multiple alternate entry and exit points and corridors that may accompany a route, nor do they indicate that the centerline is frequently well away from the center of the route corridor. For instance, VR100 in New Mexico shows one route segment to be five nautical miles right and three nm left of the centerline. Another segment of the same route is listed as two nm right and 28 nm left. Most routes, however, tend to be between three and five nm on either side of the centerline. Like MOAs, they ought to be avoided when they are hot. If you plan to fly in an MTR, the military emphatically urges you to contact a flight service station or the controlling agency to learn if the route will be hot. They'd also like you to know the route's location and what air bases are in your area so you'll know where to look and what aircraft to look for.
Unfortunately some GA pilots, like Al Carpenter, are caught between a rock and a hard place. His airfield lies within five nautical miles of the centerlines for five busy MTRs. Two of those centerlines are a mile or less away from his airfield. "If I didn't fly when it was hot," complains this former Navy fighter pilot and multiyear guest at the Hanoi Hilton, "I would never fly!" Even though Carpenter has had jets at pattern altitude, he doesn't consider them to be a major problem. Just "keep your head up and on a swivel" and assume all routes are always hot. After all, he says, "You are never relieved of your responsibility to see and avoid."
Right or wrong, it appears many military pilots are convinced that a large segment of the GA population is reckless when it comes to flying in hot, special-use airspace. While studies and anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise, it's plain from my 20 minutes over Farmsville (with two GA aircraft going through the MOA) that there's reason for their belief. While wrapping up this story, I sent out an e-mail to some of my flying buddies asking about their experiences. Leo Callahan, a former Air Force pilot who now flies GA, wrote back saying, "If the MOA is active, I don't fly there. If I cannot contact the controlling agency, I don't fly there. I spent many hours flying in MOAs during my Air Force career and I have no intentions of playing with F-15s, A-10s, or any other high-performance machines. It could ruin everyone's day."
Whether through mistake, need, or defiance, GA pilots will continue to fly in hot special-use airspace, a fact that doesn't sit well with the military. In some instances, these flights are essentially unavoidable. For the vast majority of us, they're not. When this airspace is hot, it's best that GA pilots avoid it for the simple reason that we'd all like to live to fly another day. As CFI Becky Luther says, "there are no rules to stop them, only common sense."


Tim Wright is a pilot and freelance writer and photographer living in Richmond.

[Parc-Ratstej]

Dick.......Head a story de oder day.Dem boys tell me your a real puckin goose.Always lookin por da sunny sky and easy option!spare me your sorrow and ply south..real far wid little puel!!CU.

[vans]

Errr En-Rooter……..I think that should be “Seriously”!!

[Dick Smith]

Howabout, the issue with the MOA (Military Operation Area) is what is happening in it at the time. I have friends in the USA who will fly VFR in an MOA if it has been activated, say, for helicopter winch practice. However if it had been activated for fighter training, they would not.

We presently have our fighters screaming through Class G airspace at low levels. Mostly they are not following pre-organised routes (as per the USA) and the safety is obtained from the fact that the probability of hitting one in most parts of Australia is extremely small.

In the UK, due to its limited airspace, the fighter jocks share the Class G airspace with GA. There has been an occasional midair – but at very low levels, mostly with helicopters.

In the USA their MOAs and restricted areas are generally in the “triangles” that are created between air routes, and most are out over Arizona or Nevada where the traffic density is lower and therefore the number of diversions is less.

To everyone with ideas in relation to Williamtown, the answer is very simple. If the rules were updated to those of other modern aviation countries, there would rarely be any holding in the lane. More importantly, VFR aircraft would fly over the top with a clearance in Class C airspace, or through Class E airspace without a clearance as they do in North America.

I once met an American couple who were flying around the world. They got to the Williamtown control zone at 5,500 feet and requested a clearance across the top. They said it was like Oliver asking for more. The controller was horrified that they would be so audacious and told them to immediately descend to 500 feet – which put them in the salt laden air – and to fly along the beach via the lane. They monitored the approach and tower frequencies and said that the only traffic operating was a commuter aircraft.

I say again, once we can get the military people in Canberra to go ahead with the change that they have said they will do, the whole system will work extremely safely but without the extra risk and costs of unnecessary holding.

[No Further Requirements]

We presently have our fighters screaming through Class G airspace at low levels. Mostly they are not following pre-organised routes (as per the USA) and the safety is obtained from the fact that the probability of hitting one in most parts of Australia is extremely small.

LJR perhaps? Do you read NOTAMs? :ugh:

NFR.

[scran]

Dick,
Ask the US Military about the value of the "set-routes" they fly low level................


no - on second thoughts, I can't be bother anymore..............

[Atlas Shrugged]

http://www.kcomputerzone.ca/media/images/computer_smash.gif

[ftrplt]

In the USA their MOAs and restricted areas are generally in the “triangles” that are created between air routes, and most are out over Arizona or Nevada where the traffic density is lower and therefore the number of diversions is less.

The MOA I used to fly in regularly was smack in the middle of North Carolina; one of the highest traffic density areas in the US. We regularly had bug smashers flying through the middle of Air Combat training. It was more risky (for all concerned) and definitely lowered the training benefit for the Air Force aircraft.

MOA's ARE MORE DANGEROUS THAN RESTRICTED AIRSPACE - FACT

We also had commuter airlines and lighties flying around our USAF base traffic zone (I think the zone was only 5 miles but I cant remember exactly) and were often given traffic on them (we were on UHF, they were on a different VHF) but in the haze we would often pass through 'ships in the night' with no visual and no radar paint. The risk was increased when you were dragging a 4 ship formation through the area. So the airspace can be less restrictive, but it is impossibe to deny that the RISK DOES NOT INCREASE

Mostly they are not following pre-organised routes (as per the USA) and the safety is obtained from the fact that the probability of hitting one in most parts of Australia is extremely small.


Wrong. In the USA you cannot plan and fly a low level route of your choice, you can only fly on a pre-planned VR route. They are usually 5(?) miles across or so and are extremely restrictive as far as training benefit is concerned. The RAAF currently has access to an extremely less restrictive and more beneficial system.

If the rules were updated to those of other modern aviation countries, there would rarely be any holding in the lane.

So what you are saying is that if the rules were 'updated' there is still a chance that there would be holding - so how do you determine that in this case the holding will be less than present; what is the benefit vs impact to GA / Military operations???

The rules could be changed to allow Dick to do what he wants; but it will increase the risk and it will impact on military operations (they would probably carry more fuel reserves as an example), so whilst anything is possible as always it would be a balance.

You mentioned traffic density yourself Dick; in the US they HAVE to share in a lot of circumstances; we can still afford to be more restrictive and therefore be SAFER and continue to provide the most effective training opportunities for RAAF crews; at the cost of very SMALL inconvenience to GA.

One possible reason for a reluctance to provide a coastal lane (i.e no clearance required) would be when the RAAF wishes to close the lane; you would be running the risk that you would have aircraft transiting the (de-activated) lane without any idea it has been closed - this again would be an increase in Risk. I am not saying this is enough reason not to have a lane; but it is a factor in the risk/reward decision.

[TCFOR]

The UK equivalent of our 'restricted airspace' is a 'MATZ', the difference is, you could ask the RAF controller for a 'MATZ Penetration', and he would either give you an altitude and vector, or "own navigation", (which meant there was no activity in the MATZ). In decades I was only refused a MATZ penetration a handful of times.

[Dick Smith]

Ftrplt, I’ll say it again to make it really clear. When I have been held at Nobbys, the holding has not been because of military operations. I have been held at Nobbys because of IFR airline operations in or out of Williamtown Airport.

If the controller bothered to give the airline a clearance which required an altitude of 1,000 feet by the coast, there would be no need for the holding. Airline pilots have told me that this type of clearance would not be restrictive as they are well over 1,000 feet by the coast, or have turned onto their track before then.

I’m not sure how we can “afford to be more restrictive” in Australia than the USA. You don’t appear to understand that this is a globalised world and we have a free trade agreement with the USA. That means that any additional costs put onto Australian businesses makes us uncompetitive.

I have found in talking to many military people that most appear to have no grasp of how a business actually operates, and how important it is to reduce waste and keep overheads down. I often wonder how these military people run their own home finances. Maybe they think that a business is different.

You appear to be showing a classic resistance to change – i.e. the way we have done it since the 1950s should be the way we keep it, even if it is more costly than what happens in our major competitor countries.

[bob55]

1000 FT by the coast doesn't cut it for ATC standards. You'd need 1500FT by the coast, and only if the VFR was operating not above 500 FT and 1 mile east of the coast.

[Wiley]

Dick, I flew RPT twins into Willy for quite some years, if quite some years ago, and I have to say the RAAF controllers there were sweetness and light compared with others I could mention, (but let’s not go there today), doing a very good job in getting us in in between their F18s.

Like others who’ve responded before me, I’m more than a little bemused by some of your comments - like In the UK, due to its limited airspace, the fighter jocks share the Class G airspace with GA. There has been an occasional midair – but at very low levels, mostly with helicopters.I’ve added the boldface because there isn’t a smiley that I’m aware of that denotes incredulity.

You also show a surprising lack of knowledge of the system you were one (twice?) in charge of when you make statements like We presently have our fighters screaming through Class G airspace at low levels. Mostly they are not following pre-organised routes (as per the USA) and the safety is obtained from the fact that the probability of hitting one in most parts of Australia is extremely small.Designated Low Jet Routes have been in place in Australia for well over 30 years, and the RAAF is – or certainly was – very careful to follow them. LJRs give civilian pilots (who read their Notams) notice of where the fast jets will be, but probably more importantly, they have been carefully checked to ensure that they remain clear of noise-sensitive areas and obstructions, like power lines.

I notice in an earlier reply you tried putting on your schoolmaster’s cap in gently chiding one respondent for not understanding risk assessment, going on to use ETOPS operations as an example that the respondent, as a professional pilot, was doing “without understanding” that he was taking risks that had been deemed aceptable.

Bemused is the word that comes to mind – yet again – when I see someone with your background comparing ETOPS with (what you see as) the ‘acceptable’ risk of allowing a light aircraft to transit a takeoff splay – because (as you see it), the chances of a twin suffering an engine failure and being at exactly the same level at exactly the same time as what I'll call 'the intruder' are so low that it should be acceptable for you to proceed into the area unimpeded. Simply put, that just ain’t the way Aviation is conducted – and rightly so.

Call it Sod’s Law, call it Dr James Reason’s Swiss Cheese model – call it what you like - but these procedures have been put in place so that crews – both civilian and military – don’t have to rely on that proverbial ‘last slice of cheese’ as the ONLY factor between them and disaster. What you’re suggesting is basically that - removing all safety constraints and relying on ‘the last slice of cheese’ – that the two aircraft will not be in exactly the same piece of airspace at exactly the same time. Sod’s Law says that one day they will – and you never know, it might just be you who is in one of the conflicting aircraft that day.

[Cap'n Arrr]

I'm not sure how familiar everyone here is with Williamtown (and i skipped page 2:eek:), but the way it works for lighties transiting is fairly simple.

You have 2 options for transiting the airspace.

1) The Inland Lane - Follows a railway line through the valley up through Dungog and Gloucester. Forced down below the tops of the mountains (no fun on turbulent days, let me assure you), but it is Class G - Can fly through at any time.

2) Willy Coastal - Fly up or down the coast at 500'. Requires a clearance, which is not always available immediately. Heading North, it starts at Nobby's head (where that tanker got beached recently), or heading South it starts, from memory, at Broughton Island (Just off the coast of Nelson Bay, where the Grey Nurses breed).

I have been heading coastal southbound before and had to hold halfway down the lane, before crossing the approach path for RWY 30, due approaching Jet* Airbus. I can tell you, I was much happier holding there, as I saw how bloody close I would have been to the Airbus if I had been let through without delay.

I have had to hold at Nobby's for many reasons, including Military traffic, and inbound/outbound airlines. Each time the reason has been valid enough for me, and I accepted it because I CHOSE to take the more scenic and pleasant route, knowing before I took off that there was always the possibility of having to hold or being completely refused clearance due to it being MILITARY airspace, it's the chance you take, and worst case you can always fly up the inland lane.

I once met an American couple who were flying around the world. They got to the Williamtown control zone at 5,500 feet and requested a clearance across the top. They said it was like Oliver asking for more. The controller was horrified that they would be so audacious and told them to immediately descend to 500 feet – which put them in the salt laden air – and to fly along the beach via the lane. They monitored the approach and tower frequencies and said that the only traffic operating was a commuter aircraft.If you read the ERSA, it is (or at least was) a requirement for VFR aircraft to plan either inland or coastal lanes of transit. You can ask for another clearance, but you probably won't get it.

- Side note: I have often been given a clearance to track overhead WLM from present position at altitudes 2500' and sometimes lower, so it does get given.

The only aircraft on the frequencies they monitored was a commuter aircraft. It should be pointed out that Willy is also the main fast jet training base in Australia. 76 Sqn (Adv. Hawk Training) and 2OCU (Hornet Conversion) are both based out of there, as well as 3 separate fighter squadrons. These all do training all the time, within Willy airspace (which is also classed as RESTRICTED airspace) within large block levels (often SFC to 30000 or something similarly large). This does include no radio, and I'm fairly sure that there are Military Only frequencies that are commonly used, since I rarely hear any Panther 22's or anything like that, except when they're being directed on approach like any other aircraft or being cleared through the 'gates'

Some final food for thought: How many times have you gone for Harbour Bridge Orbits and had to hold?

Yarr!:ok:

[BATTERED SAV]

Dick, maybe you have arrived over Nobbies at a time when the RAAF have their aircraft arriving back from exercises ( this can mean anywhere from 2 to 14 aircraft within a 20 minute period). At this time most aircraft are held, whether VFR, IFR, on the ground or in the air, you would understand why when standing on the ground at YWLM watching formations of F18's joining overhead the field.
I cannot confirm, but my understanding is that YWLM is also a training ground for military Air Traffic Controllers, as well for many foreign military ATC personnal (this I cannot confirm but of general understanding at YWLM).
Lastly, from my experience at Willy operating in and out on a daily basis for 7 years, VFR aircraft are frequently not held when transiting north and south along the coast at 500ft, instead ATC will issue us with a take off clearance from RWY 12 with a requirement to stay 1 mile west of the coast line on departure.
Yes Dick they are not perfect and could take some notes from their civil counterparts at YSSY airport, but at the end of the day they run a different operation with different rules and procedures. You must also remember they are now dealing with an enormous growth rate of civil traffic at YWLM which will continue into next year (which I hear they are not happy about).
The big one Dick. It is their airport and their airspace, I personnally find them very accommodating to civil private, freight, charter and RPT operations.
BS.

[Dick Smith]

Very interesting – especially that so many of the most recent posts on this thread are all about keeping our 1950s procedures at Williamtown. I suggest everyone looks back a the post of mjbow2 of 19 December regarding the Amarillo Class C airspace and its dimensions. British MATZ (Military Air Traffic Zone) – some with up to 50 Tornado fighters – have even smaller dimensions.

I am not suggesting that we have the British system, I’m suggesting we use the US NAS system of MOAs – especially for places like Oakey. There you have an enormous restricted area that is nearly 50 miles in diameter to the surface for (I understand) helicopter training. That would be an ideal place for an MOA.

If the Williamtown controllers have to ensure 1,000 feet of vertical separation between IFR and VFR, it shows that the rules are out of date. For many years Australia has accepted the ICAO – I say again, ICAO – cruising level table which gives 500 feet of separation between IFR and VFR. If that is approved by ICAO, why would we need 1,000 feet when aircraft are under ATC control and have no doubt additionally been given traffic on each other?

Cap’n Arrr, I’m told that the safest place to transit an airport that has approach and departure traffic is above 5,000 feet. As I’ve mentioned, it is almost impossible to get a clearance above 5,000 feet over Williamtown – even when the airspace is only activated for civilian traffic.

As mentioned by mjbow2, the Class C airspace in the United States only goes to 5,000 feet AGL, so most VFR aircraft would transit across the top in Class E airspace. Busy airports such as Los Angeles have VFR lanes which cross the runway complex at altitude – the safest place for VFR aircraft to be.

Pass-A-Frozo, the procedure I am talking about has no cost – it actually saves money by reducing unnecessary holding. If an airline aircraft will be at 1,500 feet by the coast on its normal departure, then there is no additional cost to be given this as a requirement in the clearance.

Wiley, we do have fighter jets flying in Class G airspace and not following pre-organised routes. I’ve even seen an F/A-18 in the Class G airspace 500 feet off the coast in Sydney with no mention of this on the NOTAMS.

Wiley, Sod’s Law and the James Reason model are completely different. The James Reason model uses probability to maximise safety – i.e. what is the mathematical probability of all the holes lining up?

Regarding the example I have given in relation to an engine failure on take off at Williamtown, it is not the

‘last slice of cheese’ as the ONLY factor between them and disaster As both aircraft are under air traffic control and have been given traffic on each other, in the case of an engine failure wouldn’t they look out and avoid each other? It is called “alerted see and avoid.” I understand that at major airports when 747s have been given a visual approach and instructed to sight and follow another aircraft, that is what they do. They look out (using “alerted see and avoid”) and do not run into the other aeroplane.

Wiley, you seem to be coming up with every justification to keep the status quo – never move forward. Are you military trained or ex-military?

Ozbiggles, your statement

Standby for further gives me the hint that either the military people who have fibbed to me for over a decade (saying how they are going to make important changes but never do) will either be making the changes or taking some action in relation to my statement. I’m happy either way. If I make a promise to someone and have to let them down, I contact them and explain the reason. I don’t just act as if nothing has happened. If you are suggesting that there could be some type of legal action, I will accept that. Then we will all be able to hear why promises have been made and then broken. It will be of great public interest.

[Pera]

Australian vertical separation standards are ICAO.

The ICAO cruising levels are not separation standards but are a strategic tool to reduce conflictions especially in Class G.

A requirement for an IFR departure to reach 1500' by the coast would (as BOB55 advised) require the VFR aircraft to be 1nm over water (at 500').

[Wiley]

in the case of an engine failure wouldn’t they look out and avoid each other?I think with that comment, Mr Smith has destroyed any shread of credibility some readers here may have imagined he has.

[410]

Mr Smith, apropos Mr Wiley’s perhaps overly emotive comment, could I suggest you ask one of your doubtlessly many contacts within the aviation fraternity to organise an observation ride for you in a simulator? Sit and observe a crew handling an engine failure at V1+1 and see how much time (and aircraft performance) they have to “look out and avoid each other”, especially around the 500’ mark. It’s no different – (and maybe even more busy for a single pilot) - for the crew of a light twin in the same situation.

Surprises can come from very unexpected areas when flying close to the ground. Some years ago, I found myself in a situation not unlike the one Mr Smith complained about in starting this thread. I was flying a Bell 205 - (for all intents and purposes, just a bigger version of the 206 Mr Smith flew around the world in) – between Nowra and Williamtown on a sunny Summer Sunday afternoon, and was held by Sydney ATC at Cronulla because they were using 16 at Mascot.

After ten minutes orbiting, with no apparent end of the hold in sight, I told the controller we didn’t have fuel to hold much longer. He asked me if I was willing to accept a non-standard (and possibly not exactly within the rules) clearance – “not above 100 feet until clear of the 16 flight path”. We carefully considered this non standard clearance – for about a nanosecond. ATC was actually giving three 20-something red-blooded Australian males permission to beetle along North Cronulla beach, packed with babes in all states of undress, not above100 feet?
We took it – and as we approached the northern end of the beach, (fortuitously if not surprisingly), every one of us paying great attention to our “lookout”, a bloke launched himself in a hang glider from a dune immediately in front of us. One minute clear skies and a clear flight path, and a second later, the underside plan form of a hang glider, (looking very much like Batman’s searchlight being shone on the clouds), filling my windscreen.

I don’t know who got the bigger fright – I broke right, out to sea and almost certainly blew my altitude restriction - (I wasn’t looking at my altimeter!) - and I’m not sure what the poor bastard in the hang glider did. We missed – literally by a whisker – and I sincerely hope my rotor wash didn’t leave him in too bad a state to regain some semblance of control.

Not exactly the same, I know, but I think this incident might show the fallacy of Mr Smith’s comment …what are the odds of an IFR aircraft having an engine failure on take off from 12 and crossing the coast at 500 feet at exactly the same time that a VFR aircraft in the lane is at the same place?. Sometimes two aircraft do find themselves in the same piece of sky at exactly the same time, and if the crew of one of those aircraft is dealing with the first minute or two of an engine failure procedure, they will definitely not be in a position to “look out and avoid each other”.

[ozbiggles]

Mr Smith
I dont need to resort to legal action if I disagree with someone. Its a waste of court time and just makes laywers richer.
Even if someone resorts to calling people callous in their regard for other peoples lives and incompetent in their private lives.
I'm sure there are people out there who would chose to waste court time if they had been slandered in this way.
The way I remember people of our defence force is what they do when people need them, ie PNG, Timor, Solomon, Far NQ in cyclone relief, Indonesia, Bali and the job they do in support of government policy.
You go ahead with your big brush on what defence people are to you because they delay you 2mins.
No one cares what I say.....but they are watching what you say with great interest.

[Lodown]

I would think the primary purpose of military airspace is to allow for training in warlike scenarios. As a consequence, I expect commercial aircraft to be accommodated as much as practical, but their commercial, normal needs to be secondary to the primary needs of the military. Should these priorities ever be reversed, then I would expect military training and capabilities to be compromised.

[Bell_Flyer]

Ozbiggles say ... The way I remember people of our defence force is what they do when people need them, ie PNG, Timor, Solomon, Far NQ in cyclone relief, Indonesia, Bali and the job they do in support of government policy.

Bless our military forces. I am an ex conscript. I agree with your statement. I love our military. However the military is not beyond reproach. One example. Remember, Captain Shane Della-Vedova who stole 10 rocket launchers in 2002 and tried to sell them at $12,000 a piece (SMH December 20th)? He was complicit with Dean Steven Taylor, an army corporal? Thank goodness Captain & Corporal weren't Muslims or had names like Haneef or Muhammed - but I digress. What about those soldiers who are in charged of the non flying Seasprites with $1.4b in cost over-runs? Or perhaps the soldiers who managed to lose $2.1bn in the frigate upgrade (see ANAO reports via Google). As a tax payer I am annoyed no one has been made accountable. This would be a great thread if Angus Houston or any of his senior people contribute. But they won't. So the politics of blind faith, secrecy, suppositions etc cuts in.

I can't read anywhere that Dick was dissing our men in uniform. On many Anzac Days over many years, I have observed him with a flag and placard cheering our parading troops past and present. U cld be over-reacting there perhaps?

It'd make lovely TV if I could get Lieut Caffey to yell, "Col Jessop, did you order a Code Red?" re holding at YSRI, Willy, etc etc. Thanks for reading and let's keep this thread positive and constructive.

[Pera]

I can't read anywhere that Dick was dissing our men in uniform

Have another read.

[Barkly1992]

For Gxxds sake DICK - just go away.

You have been banging your gums togther for at least 30 years about what you believe to be the absolute incomptence of the commonwealth bureaucrats who manage the airspace system - predicting either disaster or how we can reduce the costs of flying by $10 per hour by adopting your approach.

Give me a break - the system works incredible well. And there are a lot of people in CAS, in AsA and also in the private sector who are working to keep it that way.

We do not have mid-air collisons - we do not have many CFIT accidents - in fact we have a very safe system as the stats continually show. When we have significant accidents it invariably involves a failure of judgement on the part of the pilot or the company - not the ATC system or the regulations. First fly the aeroplane Dick.

We have a system that everyone involved is trying to make safer.

Look Dick - like me you are almost the old boring person - approaching 70 - just give it a break and retire.

Cheers

Grumpy

[Atlas Shrugged]

As both aircraft are under air traffic control and have been given traffic on each other, in the case of an engine failure wouldn’t they look out and avoid each other? It is called “alerted see and avoid.” I understand that at major airports when 747s have been given a visual approach and instructed to sight and follow another aircraft, that is what they do. They look out (using “alerted see and avoid”) and do not run into the other aeroplane.


Dick,

I am curious to know whether you have experienced an engine failure before?

I have - 4 times; one of which catastrophic at <400ft is a single and I can assure you that the last fecking thing on my mind was looking out for other traffic.

[Dick Smith]

Ozbiggles, I’m clearly not criticising “defence people” who represent us overseas. I’m clearly referring to the ones who sit in an office in Canberra. From my first post:

I believe it is because of an almost complete lack of leadership in the hierarchy of ATC in the Air Force in Canberra. In my experience, our military controllers are as good as any in the world. It is just that they are totally let down by people who move up into management positions Imagine if we ever had a war – with the present people in senior positions in the Air Force seemingly unable to make any decision which requires lateral thinking and real leadership. Ozbiggles, you say:

they are watching what you say with great interest. I suggest they stick to their promises otherwise they will hear a lot more from me next year.

[Dick Smith]

Atlas Shrugged, yes, I have experienced an engine failure. It was in my Citation when flying single pilot at Flight Levels over Orange, with no other people on board. The cockpit was also filled with smoke. I declared an emergency and landed at Bathurst, making the required announcements and keeping my eyes open to see and avoid other aircraft.

If you can’t look out after an engine failure, what do airline aircraft do when flying OCTA and experiencing an engine failure?

[ASKARI]

SuperCecil,

Enrooted, Gutless shrugged, you blokes nothing to do besides witless, vitriolic replies? Time for you blokes to start making grammar and spelling corrections so you can feel superior. Start 4? That you with another name enRooted? Maybe you should stick to your kiddies books.

You seems to be equally as guilty as everyone else with your gutless, mindless attacks on people!

For the record, I understand where dick is coming from but I also understand why Willy does what it does: SAFETY! The best outcome anyone can seek is a compromise; and NOT a compromise on SAFETY! Dick, of all people, should underatnd this?

[Wine Glass]

Dick,
the engine failure scenario you described is a world away from the engine out contingency being mooted in this thread. An engine loss and descent from flight levels from overhead a suitable airport (albiet with smoke) is not in the same league as losing a donk shortly after T/O in your typical GA twin. Marginal excess performance, high weight (take-off, remember), struggling to maintain blue line and get the ship in order, AND not drop in on the dunes or water will eat up most of the situational awareness of any pilot...doesn't leave a lot remaining for the lookout of someone else crossing your path on upwind who is too impatient to hold for a couple of minutes whilst a commercial operator gets airborne.
I'm not diminishing your experience in your Citation - well done for getting it down - but it is not the same as the scenario in this thread. Any attempt to represent it as such suggests that perhaps you are disingenuous or being naive in this instance.
I've had serious engine malfunctions in both scenarios (heavy weight upwind and at flight levels) and they are different beasts entirely.
410's post on 21/12 (first paragraph) hits the nail squarely on the head.

[ftrplt]

Ozbiggles, I’m clearly not criticising “defence people” who represent us overseas. I’m clearly referring to the ones who sit in an office in Canberra. From my first post:


Quote:
I believe it is because of an almost complete lack of leadership in the hierarchy of ATC in the Air Force in Canberra. In my experience, our military controllers are as good as any in the world. It is just that they are totally let down by people who move up into management positions

Quote:
Imagine if we ever had a war – with the present people in senior positions in the Air Force seemingly unable to make any decision which requires lateral thinking and real leadership.

Ozbiggles, you say:


Quote:
they are watching what you say with great interest.

I suggest they stick to their promises otherwise they will hear a lot more from me next year.

Again Mr Smith, you are making a complete ASS of yourself.

Some of the present senior people in the Air Force are more than capable at managing and conducting war and warlike operations; many of them have from Gulf War II and continue to do so in the Middle East. To take your dismay over what is really a piss-ant little issue and to then link it to the capability and professionalism of senior Officers is really quite pathetic.

Your arrogance is astounding to insinuate that when a decision that you wish to be made is not delivered; then they are automatically incompetent.

Have you ever considered that maybe they have made a decision to not change anything? Maybe there are considerations that stop the decision you desire? Maybe the IFR clearance engine out is a show stopper - the fact that some airline pilots think it is OK doesnt mean ****.

It has already been clearly shown that you don't have all the facts; for example you have asked for 500ft separation and have been told that this is not the standard. What else don't you know about the issue???

You can say all you like next year; your understanding of your influence and what is reality are two very different things.

[Atlas Shrugged]

Dick,
Thanks for answering.

Perhaps I could be so bold as to rephrase my initial question, so that we can keep it in the context of this thread:

Have you ever experienced an engine failure, in a single engine or light twin, in the clean configuration, at close to mtow, at or below 500ft, catastrophic or otherwise?

Unfortunatley, those of us that have, and indeed those of us that will or will again, do not have the luxury of time.

Simply put, it is a case of get it the **** down in the least worst place!

[ozbiggles]

G'day Bell Flyer
I agree with the first part of your post completly. Defence people are not above the law or justified criticism. In fact I have utter disgust for the case you mentioned and hope that those responsible are very old before they see freedom again. I think if you re read some of Mr Smiths posts you will find a number of instances that could be taken as ill directed wide spread criticism of a large group of defence people. I recall a web site somewhere where the owner of that web site mentions he hopes that PPRUNE will be 'cleaned up', I'm sure that person didn't want to see a whole group of people being called callous in their regard for peoples safety, hopeless in running their private business and inferring that the current CDF was lying to him. This would be the same CDF when as CAF was widely regarded as telling the truth about the 'children overboard' saga despite knowing what the possible consequences where.
Back to the thread.
It has been mentioned that the chances of a mid air are remote. The FACTS from an ATSB report are that Australia currently has a mid air once per year. About the same rate as the UK and USA. Mostly in the Circuit area. You could mount an argument the CCT area of WLM and the coastal lane are close....hence the policy of seperating aircraft in that area of the world.
You can also google the aircraft accident sites, put in collision and have a look at some of the stats there. Who knows how many close calls there are that are 1. reported and 2. Not reported.
Now Mr Smith you did leave out a few quotes that referred to defence people as well in one of your rebuttals. I would like to believe that maybe you have let your emotions about this subject use a paintbrush a few sizes to big, I hope so.
So in the spirit of Christmas I have a deal for you. Every time you get held at Wlm, I will donate $5 to legacy (about half the cost of an orbit).I would have suggested a beer, but I'm still a little cranky for that. To start the ball rolling I will send in $20 immediately. I will even send in the receipt to PPRUNE to verify it!

[MTOW]

Not a criticism of the originator of this thread, but an observation: this thread could be used by some psych student to study how a man gets to be a multi squillionaire - be utterly confident that you are right in everything you do, ignore everyting but the 'big picture', including all criticism, and plough on with your master plan regardless.

It would appear to work very well in business (if not always - some businesspeople go broke). I have two friends who were both self-made millionaires before they turned 30, and the common thread seems to be a willingness to take enormous risks (with theirs and other people's money) and an ability to concentrate on 'the big picture' and not worry about all the little things that might go wrong.

It might help explain why airline pilots are so frequently so bad at business - we are trained NOT to take risks and to worry about all the little things and to go to extraordinary lengths to ensure some 'little thing' doesn't leap out of left field and bite us.

Maybe that judge had it right back in the 1960s when he used the term 'sui generis' - (roughly translated as 'like no other') to describe the profession of flying an aeroplane. And maybe that's why we're all wasting our time debating with a very clever self-made millionaire who for all his undoubted skills, does not appear to think along the same lines as most professional aviators.

[LeadSled]

Folks,

Controlled Airspace and Engine Failures

Could I respectfully suggest that those of you who are actually professional pilots flying multi-engine aircraft bone up on the criteria, on which engine-out performance is based.

"Controlled" (for our purposes here in Australia, D and up) airspace design DOES NOT attempt to provide "controlled airspace" protection for an engine out or any other non-normal situation.

"Controlled airspace" exists for the purpose of separation of aircraft, and to a lesser degree, obstacle clearance ---- in normal flight, but the latter is still the ultimate responsibility of the PIC.

Have a think about it. Given the variety of aircraft types and possible engine out performance (or lack thereof) scenarios, short of controlled airspace to the ground, how would you do it ? You don't, and that's true for ICAO as well.

Equally, for operations where the PIC is expected to take advantage of controlled airspace where it is available (per. Ops. Manual), no PIC is expected to add "remaining in controlled airspace" to his or her lists of tasks in handling any emergency situation, engine out or whatever.

Thus, the fact that something heavy going off 16L/R at YSSY might go straight through the Victor VFR lane, in the event of an engine failure (it has happened --- birdstrike on two engines, B747-200) is accepted as a reasonable statistical risk. The same goes for 16 at YMML, etc. For anybody who thinks it should be otherwise, don't hold your breath, you'll only go blue in the face. It ain't going to change.

Call it what you will, "Risk Management/Cost-Benefit analysis"/ AS-NZ4360:2005/Affordable Safety/the Airspace Act 2007 (take you pick - they are all fundamentally the same) is here to stay, despite a valiant rearguard action by several groups.

The size of Military airspace at Williamtown, Richmond or anywhere else, has nothing to do with keeping civil aircraft in "controlled airspace" in the event of an emergency. Last time I noticed, Richmond zone boundaries were based on two ancient and seldom (if ever, now) used TACAN approaches.

The fundamental of military airspace design policy in Australia has long been "We won WWII, it all belongs to us", and unlike many countries, in Australia civil makes its own arrangements with "What's left", notwithstanding all sorts of various joint airspace/user agreements.

Tootle pip!!

[Coppertopthegreat]

The only thing worse than Willy ATC is airspace reform from Uncle Dick

Mate they should have had a little airspace laneway with a few signs up to let those pesky bastards flying the F18s know you are crossing Their Restricted airspace.http://www.signs-up.com/prod_images/Goose_xing_thumb_640.jpg

[Super Cecil]

ASKARI said,
You seems to be equally as guilty as everyone else with your gutless, mindless attacks on people!

And where would that be?

As others and I have said, if a Victor one type area works at Mascot with 100 times more traffic than Willy why is it so different? Why is it so dangerous at Willy with some very switched on military flying and not at Mascot?:hmm:

[En-Rooter]

You seem to be equally as guilty as everyone else with your gutless, mindless attacks on people!

ASKARI,

All due respect mate, SuperKnob is probably not gutless, mindless? Yes, more than likely, mainly he's just a knob and a dense one at that.

Hey SuperKnob :ok:

[Cap'n Arrr]

Super Cecil

Difference is that Willy is military, and they are able to close down all the airspace if they so desire. Also the runway is much closer to the coastal lane than in Sydney, and the approach path passes almost straight through it (at least thats how I remember it being, been a long time)

Also, there IS a Victor 1 style route through Willy airspace, no clearance required. Starts at Maitland, ends up just west of Taree. If anyone was concerned about holding, why not just use the inland lane and stay OCTA?

Yarr

[mjbow2]

Cap'n Arrr,


If anyone was concerned about holding, why not just use the inland lane and stay OCTA?


Why not change the way we think about VFR traffic being freely allowed into controlled airspace, especially where there is radar surveillance? Why do we hold onto these ideas that were popular 50 years ago?


See here (http://skyvector.com/#31-18-3-4797-458) where Buckley Air Force Base sits to the south of DIA, underneath Denver International Airport's Class B step. To the south west of Buckley is Centennial airport and 5nm southeast of DIA is Front Range airport, also underneath class B. As you can see, Buckley Air Force Base (military) is Class D and is traversed DAILY by VFR traffic flying from Centennial to Front Range Airport. I have made this short trip many times myself and on the occasions that the F16's of the ANG were present or the Air Force's A-10 were present we were told to remain clear of the Buckley Class D, otherwise we were promptly allowed to enter. If we did have to bypass the Air Force's Class D we only had to divert 4.3nm to the south of the airport or alternatively ask Denver Approach for a class B clearance and fly over the top of Buckley's Airspace.


What is interesting is that the Buckley Air Force Base Class D extends only 4.3NM from the airport itself. Compare this to the 24nms at Williamtown! Why on earth do we need all this wasteful class C airspace everywhere even with military traffic? The US has a great system but folks here are so resistant to changing anything.


Instead of devoting 80 odd posts on the topic inventing reasons not to change, why not look for solutions instead of problems? We need look no further than the parliament approved NAS!

MJ

[ftrplt]

The US has a great system but folks here are so resistant to changing anything.


No, it is not resistance to change. If the change has significant benefits, and there is an identifiable need, and the benefit and need outweighs any increase in possible risk; then go for it.

The US often has no choice with it's density of airports and traffic; we dont have either so the need for this flexibility may be less essential if such flexibility increases risk.

Its classic Risk / Reward stuff.

There is basically no choice in many areas of the US when it comes to sharing airspace - I can assure you it is riskier however than an entirely segregated system; and yes I do acknowledge the decreased flexibility that such a system may also entail.

I say again, the US system that has been mentioned here a few times does have higher risks from time to time depending on traffic, weather etc etc; also from the military point of view it can be a hassle to varying degrees and often degrades training (I have flown in US east coast airspace extensively with the USAF).

Not all of us having a go at Dick are saying a coastal lane is impossible or even uneccessary to some degree (I can see the desire from a GA POV); what we are saying is that a lane does not come without a change to risk and with possible degradation to military flexibility; and there should be a balance of risk / reward / operational impact. I am quite sure there are many factors that are worthy of consideration when it comes to an introduction of such a lane, and some may well be significant enough to outweigh the benefit.

The issue that we are having a go at him about is his stupid linking of a lack of a decision in his favour WRT a coastal lane, therefore implying a lack of professional ability amongst senior RAAF officers for the duties that they are trained for and have often carried out in real time combat operations.

For this reason he has no respect from me, and I know he has little respect amongst some of the senior military officers he so readily demeans.

Without respect, ones influence and effectiveness is usually seriously degraded; unless you happen to be the boss!

[Cap'n Arrr]

I see your pont mjbow2, and to be honest every time i ever asked for a coastal clearance from willy I have been given it, although I did have to hold for military training or the odd Jet* once or twice. I have also been often given clearance over the top of williamtown on several occasions and have always found them to be fairly flexible, especially considering I was in a 2 seat fixed pitch single at the time.

I understand what you mean about Buckley AFB, although VFR traffic are allowed to and do transit Willy every day as well. I've been given opposite direction F18 traffic more than once going up coastal, the zone doesn't close down for MIL TFC I guess is what I'm trying to say. If there is minimal traffic willy also allows you in without delay. If you are refused clearance, you can still get through by diverting through the inland lane, which is Class G and so always open. You made many valid points, and I am not trying to act contrary, I just feel that this is a different scenario to Buckley.

I'm not quite sure how this thread got to a debate on whether a coastal lane is possible or not, there already is one, you just need clearance, and occasionally have to hold. Difference between willy and yssy is (IMHO) proximity of the beach to the runway. Extreme example, would you fly 500' coastal past that airport in the carribean? Princess St Julienne I think it is?

I am not for one moment saying that my opinion is better than anyone elses, I accept that other people may see this differently to me, I am simply putting mine out there for you all to read, take from it what you will.:ok:

Clear skies and smooth seas

Yarrr

[Spaz Modic]

:D Dick - this is one occasion I agree with you 100%.
Now, each of the correspondents to your post has his/her own agenda, be he/she a knuck or otherwise (they need a ride in a 1960 Dak - y'know, where 25 of 'em get on, and 50 get off), but they are all, just in this case, wrong.
If ATC is ATC, then it should be ATC. That's simple enough.
But apparently not.
Why our military fast jets seem less able to operate in a mixed environment than, say, one little SE Asian nation where the Jet Jocks firewall the throttle and then hang on for dear life, passing 20000' before they realise they are off the ground, then have to execute a 20 mile final from a SIA as they don't fly circuits, is beyond me. (By the way, they still have F4 symbols on the side below the cockpit canopy to show how many they shot down).
Yes Dick, your right this time - they really do need to extricate themselves from the Halls of Russell and reach for the 21st century.
Pity you weren't right in the unmentionable year - but I'm with you on this one.:O

[Bell_Flyer]

FTRPLT says, ".....therefore implying a lack of professional ability amongst senior RAAF officers for the duties that they are trained for and have often carried out in real time combat operations."

Yeah, let's not overdo it here. I am proud of our men/women in uniform. We owe them very much, but let's also not forget a certain one star general not long ago, leaving confidential documents by way of a CD ROM in a Qantas Club computer. If she worked for the Packers or the Lowe's or the Harveys & did the same, the outcome would probably be different - not a promotion to 2 stars.

[Stationair8]

In my humble opinion most military ATC, couldn't organise a root in a brothel.

The last time I went into Williamtown, visual through 10,000' and happy to take a visual approach with no other traffic, but oh no get vectored out for the ILS which added another 20 minutes to the flight time.

Similar to Darwin in the late 80's, two or three VFR aircraft and you would be held OCTA at Wildman Lagoon or wherever, round and round in circles.

Always reckon if Darwin RAAF ATC been on duty in February 1942, the Japanese Imperial Air Force would have been held north of Bathurst Island as clearance to enter CTA or the CTR would not have been available.

[ozbiggles]

Bell
If she had been a civvy she probably would have left with a golden handshake from the company she was employed with worth a few million dollars!
However I do agree, if it had been a junior officer I think they may have missed out on promotion for awhile.
Station 8.
I've known a few military ATCs over the years. There are alot of them who are very good at organising the activity you talk about, god bless their cute little cotton socks.

[telephonenumber]

Dick,

Please start a thread stating that the sun rises in the east, (or sets in the west or perhaps that night follows day). I have a hypothesis to test.

[mjbow2]

Telephonenumber


I subscribe to the same hypothesis. That all and sundry will oppose Dick Smith on principle alone.

The arrogance of Australian aviation!

MJ

[Showa Cho]

mjbow2 - yes, just like you will step in and support him every time.

The whole point of the thread was "Why am I being delayed down the coast at Willy?"

The answer is that as the airspace is a restricted area, it is Class C. In Class C, VFR must be separated from IFR. A requirment of A010 by crossing the coast will not work as firstly, it needs to be 1000ft separation and secondly, the VFR must be 1NM off the coast. That is the standard - that's it. No ifs or buts.

To make it different, one must change the airspace classification system and/or separation rules. All that just to allow an unrestricted passage, whilst getting a free control service, once every 25 years. Dick, if you want to do it, feel free. Off you go, and good luck.

BUT - please do not belittle the controllers in the RAAF (or anywhere else) about performing their job. They are applying the rules as they are published. Get something else published and I'm sure they will be happy to apply the new rules.

Thanks for reading.

Showa.

[Dick Smith]

ASKARI, you try to explain that the holding at Williamtown is only done for safety. If this is so, why does the military close down over Christmas and CTAF procedures apply?

There are weekends when some of the largest passenger movements take place but the tower is not activated at all.

It sounds to me as if it has nothing to do with a genuine interest in the safety of airline passengers, but keeping the status quo. What do you think?

[Dick Smith]

Happy New Year to everyone. I’ve been temporarily out of touch so I will try to answer as many of the points that have been put up as I can.

Lodown, I agree that the primary purpose of military airspace is to allow for training in warlike scenarios. However I’m not referring to aircraft being held when the other traffic is military. I’m clearly referring to the situation when the other traffic is a civilian aircraft. Please read my post again.

Barkly1992, retire? You would have to be joking. Churchill became the Prime Minister of Great Britain when he was 63 – which is my age. No, I don’t compare myself with Churchill, but if he could win a war at that age, surely I can complete some pretty simple but important aviation reforms.

[Keith Myath]

Dick Smith wrote


ASKARI, you try to explain that the holding at Williamtown is only done for safety. If this is so, why does the military close down over Christmas and CTAF procedures apply?

There are weekends when some of the largest passenger movements take place but the tower is not activated at all.

It sounds to me as if it has nothing to do with a genuine interest in the safety of airline passengers, but keeping the status quo. What do you think?


Activate the airspace on weekends and public holidays.:ok:

[Dick Smith]

Ftrplt, no, it is not

a piss-ant little issue The unnecessary holding is costing our industry money and reducing safety. The costs don’t affect me personally, however the extra costs do affect general aviation businesses that cannot afford them.

Atlas Shrugged, no I have not experienced an engine failure in the precise way you have described. However, how does our uncontrolled airspace work under these circumstances? As we have lots of airline aircraft operating in uncontrolled airspace, and as they can all experience an engine failure on take off, there obviously has to be a system in place which stops them from colliding with other aircraft when having an engine failure.

When you consider the situation I described at Williamtown, if there was an engine failure the aircraft in the lane would hear the departing aircraft report an engine failure. Surely the pilot of the aircraft in the lane would look out and avoid the aircraft with the engine failure. It is called a traffic information service – it is the basis of all of our movements in uncontrolled airspace, including IFR movements in cloud.

Ozbiggles, my post was not a

wide spread criticism of a large group of defence people. My post was a very directed criticism of a small group of “no decision makers” in Canberra. Surely if they change their minds on a decision they have promised, they should at least have the ethics and the guts to say so and explain why. They haven’t done this.

I’ll say it again. I have been told clearly by senior defence people of a number of changes they are planning. These changes have never come in, and there has never been an explanation of why. I consider that not only leads to competency comments, but comments on basic ethics. I think you will find that there are real problems with a certain group of people in the military hierarchy in Canberra. As I have mentioned before, just look at the scandals and incompetence of the defence purchasing.

[max1]

Dick,
I wouldn't align myself with Churchill, as First Sea Lord in WW1, he was intimately involved in the debacle of the Gallipoli landings.
Also, if you would like to check the Notams, Willy zone has been active over the Xmas period due to the number of civilian RPT using the airport.

[Dick Smith]

Showa Cho, you state:

- please do not belittle the controllers in the RAAF (or anywhere else) about performing their job. My suggestion is that you read my initial post again. I stated:

In my experience, our military controllers are as good as any in the world. It is just that they are totally let down by people who move up into management positions and should therefore be updating the rules. You refer to the restrictions because the airspace is Class C. In fact the Government has a policy to move to the North American NAS. You will find that under NAS in North America, the separation “standards” are completely different. For example, where there is one radar head being used (which is the situation at Williamtown) the separation “standard” between IFR and VFR is “green in between” or “target resolution.” Also the dimensions of the NAS Class C are 5 miles at low level, not 24 miles.

There is absolutely no doubt that if the people in the military in Canberra made the decisions as they have promised, and followed Government policy, there would be no need for holding at Williamtown.

Once again, I’m not blaming the controllers. Just 10 days ago I flew through the Williamtown airspace and I think the “A team” must have been operating. A Virgin aircraft was coming in from the north and I was not held. The Virgin aircraft was asked to remain 1 mile from the coast and I was not delayed. It just shows that by either using the existing procedures correctly, or by the “bosses” introducing procedures that are more modern than the 1950s, that aircraft can be handled without unnecessary delays and costs.

[Showa Cho]

Dick, thank you for clearing up where your anger is directed.

However, the NAS class C will not be applicable to restricted areas, will it? A restricted area is not promulgated to allow better traffic management for VFR transits. It has a purpose - to utilise the airspace for military flying training.

The current RAAF controllers can correct me if I'm wrong, but the CTR at WLM down to the ground encompasses a couple of live fire ranges an the like. Should that be class G too?

Thanks.

Showa.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

... ahhemm :suspect:For example, where there is one radar head being used (which is the situation at Williamtown) the separation “standard” between IFR and VFR is “green in between” or “target resolution.” .. and what 'class' of airspace is than then???

[Dick Smith]

Scurvy, you ask

.. and what 'class' of airspace is than then??? Scurvy, it is Class C airspace. The ICAO classification system states that in Class C, IFR are separated from VFR. Just as in Australia we have different standards to that set by ICAO in many cases – and we have notified a difference – the same applies in the USA. I can assure you that it results in a very safe airspace system that thousands of passengers fly in each year in the USA.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

... would that be the overlaping E, D, C 'difference' ??? :rolleyes: :hmm: I can assure you ... nup .. you cannot! ;)

[Cap'n Arrr]

ASKARI, you try to explain that the holding at Williamtown is only done for safety. If this is so, why does the military close down over Christmas and CTAF procedures apply?

There are weekends when some of the largest passenger movements take place but the tower is not activated at all.

It sounds to me as if it has nothing to do with a genuine interest in the safety of airline passengers, but keeping the status quo. What do you think?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the military operates if the twr is shut down. So there in CTAF theres already a significant decrease in traffic. If I fly coastal in WLM CTAF, I still will hold for any Airbus on finals over the water.

if there was an engine failure the aircraft in the lane would hear the departing aircraft report an engine failure. Surely the pilot of the aircraft in the lane would look out and avoid the aircraft with the engine failure. It is called a traffic information service – it is the basis of all of our movements in uncontrolled airspace, including IFR movements in cloud.

If I had EFATO out of willy, the last thing on my mind would be making a report. Mix up pitch up power up gear up flap up identify test fix or feather assess climb performance am I on fire where am I going to put down. Likewise, the time required to spot and avoid the airborne aircraft from the lane would, I think, be fairly small.

I am not, contrary to mjbow's opinion, being contray for the sake of being contrary, I simply don't see a problem with having to hold on occasion if I want to fly through MIL airspace. If it's that time or cost critical, I would personally plan up the inland lane, avoiding any potential for holding, and airspace fees as well. Again, I'm not in any way suggesting my point of view is any better than Dick's, it's just my opinion.:ok:

Yarrr

[Plazbot]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the military operates if the twr is shut down.

They still launch jets when the tower is off. They get a Cagris running. Also, when things were dire a few years ago, the hornets would depart VFR into the big area off the coast all by their lonesome. My fingers are still sore from typing the ESIRs from that little adventure.

[ozbiggles]

So I'm still up for only a 20?
Mr Smith one reason for an apparent delay in what you believe you may have been told about Military airspace is that there is a war on....and maybe there are more important things going on.
in fact there are two wars on
and a peace keeping operation.
in fact two peace keeping operations and
and flood relief op.
and a number of other operations going on,
hence a small number of holds for people to stay out of the way of RPTs probably rates exactly where it belongs in the pecking order.
Of course unless you want to take a few more people out of 44Wg instead of being in Baggers of the Ghan, or the Sudan...
I can't believe I'm sticking up for ATCs!!!!!!!!

[ACMS]

Don't forget WAKE TURBULANCE.
A big jet can easily flip a small lighty flying up to 1000' or so below it's path and they would not have to be physically close either.
A 737 flies over the coast at 1,000 +, I minute later a PA28 flies under the previous path of the 737 and WAMMO.
They don't have to actually collide.

And I'd hate to be a lighty flying under a A380's path in YSSY.......yeesh.

[control snatch]

Mr Smith one reason for an apparent delay in what you believe you may have been told about Military airspace is that there is a war on

Not for anyone at Williamtown there isn't

[Bell_Flyer]

Ozbiggles say...
and maybe there are more important things going on.

I agree, there are - but I also think Angus Houston and his Staff Officers can walk and chew gum at the same time. They use private jets (freeing them up so they can have meetings in the sky), have drivers waiting for them on the ground (so they can use cell phones or discuss matters whilst on the road), they have dedicated Personal Assistants, large offices with attached conference rooms in different cities, runners, Officers' Clubs, etc, etc.The problem is that very few citizens make them accountable for their compensation packages and perks.

[Captain Sand Dune]

They use private jets Not necessarily. CDF and service chiefs can bid for a 34SQN jet, which they may get when the pollies aren't using them. Otherwise they travel RPT.

have drivers waiting for them on the ground (so they can use cell phones or discuss matters whilst on the road), they have dedicated Personal Assistants, large offices with attached conference rooms in different cities, runners, Officers' Clubs, etc, etc. Considering the size of the organisation they run and more importantly the task they are charged with, so what? How does that compare to CEO's of private companies? I think you'll find the average CEO is streets ahead when it comes to perks. Oh and let's not forget the mutli-million dollars said CEO's make compared to the salary of a serving senior officer.

The problem is that very few citizens make them accountable for their compensation packages and perks. No ,mate.......just the minister of defence, parlimentary under-secretaries, senate inquiries and armies of civil serpents etc etc. Let's not forget the media, who love to beat up on non-stories like this.

Many junior officers do not want to get promoted becuase the demands of the job far outweigh the remuneration offered. I think you have no idea about what you're saying.

[Bell_Flyer]

Captain Sand Dune says ..
I think you have no idea about what you're saying.

Well, that makes the 2 of us then, huh? To paraphrase a famous guy - We might both be wrong but one of us HAS to be wrong.

So Captain, please tell me, according to the ANAO, the DMO cost blowouts are now at $13bn, including the frigates, the Seasprites, the M113 personnel carrier upgrade, the wedgetail surveillance planes, the Tiger helos, etc; who in Defence are accountable? Have u heard of anyone getting fired for this? Anyone?

CEO's of private and public companies do get fired - ultimately. George Trumbull (AMP), Paul Anthony (AGL), Paul Batchelor (AMP), Eddie Anywhere (TCN 9), etc. Granted, they get huge payouts, but which 1 or 2 or 3 star generals have been sacked for losing money, CD-ROMS in Qantas Club, etc? Enlighten me.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Three letters, my friend...DMO.:mad: An organisation stuffed with bureaucrats of the worst kind, both defence and civilian. Just about everyone I've spoken to who has anything to do with aquisition would cheerfully nuke the place. Save a bunch of money, and might actually get something done.:ok:
However with big defence purchases comes politics, and lots of it. With the politics comes meddling and procrastination of the highest order - nothing that would actually help the people who need the gear, mind! If you want to lay the blame for cost overruns, delays etc, at someone's feet, turn to the pollies. And no, you definitely won't see them getting sacked!:yuk:

CD-ROMS in Qantas Club, etc Easy, it was a chick! = too hard!:E

[ozbiggles]

Control Snatch - Wrong. As with most Bases at the moment a lot of people are deployed, are about to be deployed or have just come back from being deployed. Just because the Hornets aren't deployed at the moment doesn't mean other people from the base aren't deployed. Read the paper about who is in the Ghan at the moment.
Bell - I would bet you the people who are responsible in this organisation don't get 8 hrs sleep a night, particualarly with a change of government, let alone the normal workload, let alone the war workload etc etc. I understand what you mean but to put the necessary number of people on this with the correct outcome isn't probably high on the list when people are dying, getting shot at or you have the latest cost over run to explain.
On that subject, defence doesn't make this stuff. They sign the contract and then get let down by the CIVILAN company who said they could do it, then promptly fails to deliver on time...if at all.
However there may be room for agreement on the fact the the comapany that fails to deliver should be made to cover the cost. The problem is if you want that in the contract it costs more...or they won't even try to build your new toy. A fantastic Catch 22.

[garudadude]

This thread has a gone a long way from where it should really be going.....

Bell Flyer is claiming that the heads of military are responsible for any cost blowout the military incurs (regardless of the meddling, lobbying and pontificating suffered from government, beurocratic process, media..) and is comparing the ADF to AMP? AGL??

Pass a Frozo is blaming SQN PLTOFFs on a $13bn DMO blowout. Please DMO, take some responsibility.

What happened to the forum of educated and experienced commercial, military and private aircrew / ATC - educating Dick about the aviation world outside of his chardonnay circle?... albeit a few years too late and to a belligerent audience.:ugh:

[ACMS]

yeah.................nobody agreed about my wake turb input.

My pride is dented :{

[Dick Smith]

Garudadude, I love it. Especially your statement:

…educating Dick about the aviation world outside of his chardonnay circle?

You obviously don’t know me! Then again, once at a charity wine auction I did pay $1,000 for a bottle of Fanta.

It is interesting how no one has addressed the real point. That is, even if the airspace is active and needs to be of such vast size, that modern procedures (as used in other leading aviation countries) would reduce the amount of holding and waste.

[ozbiggles]

Yes, the point (or possible reasons for it) have been addressed countless times....just not to your satisfaction.
And just to clarify are you talking about all of the airspace now or just the bit you started talking about ie Holding at Nobby's?
Just to refresh your memory some of the points that have been offered
To close to the departing upwind leg.
To busy (airspace and workload to make changes that are safe).
Wake turbulence (there you go ACMS).
The what if's of engine failures.
TCAS alert.
because they can etc etc

[telephonenumber]

Why not move the damn air base, it's in the way there anyway.

And take Richmond with you too.

[Klaus Fuchs]

RUMOUR has it an esteemed former CASA head was heard on the airwaves as recently as this week voicing his displeasure at being held by WLM ATC. Is it true??

Sounds like a dick move.....

(pun too obvious to avoid)

[Dick Smith]

Yesterday on a flight north from Terrey Hills to the Coffs Harbour area in my Agusta helicopter I was once again held at Nobbys – unnecessarily orbiting low over the water and over a beach with people on it. The sky conditions were scattered cloud below 5,000 feet.

The reason for the holding was a Brindabella Metro approaching Williamtown from the south to land on runway 30. From what I could make out he was above 5,000 feet when he overflew the Nobbys area.

Here is an interesting point. A few weeks ago (when I think the “A team” was on duty) a Virgin jet was approaching to land on runway 30. The controller asked the Virgin pilot if he could remain 1 mile to the west of the coast due to traffic in the VFR lane. The Virgin pilot agreed. I was not held and was cleared to fly along the coast at 500 feet without unnecessary delays.

Why didn’t it happen this time? Why didn’t the controller ask the Brindabella pilot whether he could remain 1 mile to the west of the coast due to traffic in the lane? I feel sure that the answer would have been yes.

On my return flight I decided not to have the almost 100% chance of holding for no proper reason at all, so I used the so-called “inland lane.” What a crock. I have never seen anything like this anywhere in the world. It must have been designed for tiger moths in the Second World War. Most of the time in the lane, at the maximum legal altitude of either 1,000 feet or 1,500 feet, it would not be possible for a fixed wing aircraft to do a safe forced landing. This lane is undoubtedly an accident waiting to happen.

You would think the lane at such a low level would follow the valleys. It actually follows the railway line which goes through two tunnels, and where the railway goes through the tunnel the lane has less than 500 feet of clearance from the ground to where you would normally be flying OCTA.

I’ve checked with people who live in the lane and they said that in the last 10 years they cannot remember a low flying military jet over their area.

I point out that when you join the lane near Mount George it is over 50 nautical miles from Williamtown Airport, and where the lane drops from 1,500 feet to 1,000 feet (what would this be for?) it is over 20 miles from Williamtown.

Perhaps the “holding” is a training and standardisation issue. Why is it that one controller can cope with a jet airliner without unnecessarily holding another aircraft, but another controller cannot cope with a small turbo-prop?

I look forward to comments.

[ROARING RIMAU]

Are you sure that there was only you and Metro in the same area?

It's a bit like swimming with a shark.....the one you see usually doesn't bite you...........but the one you don't see...ouch......a bit like midairs.:\

[Dick Smith]

Roaring Rimau, no, the only aircraft that I was being separated from was the Metro.

By the way, the tower doesn’t appear to “own” any airspace. I remember years ago we used to have this ridiculous situation at Canberra. Then the Canberra Tower was given the airspace to the control zone boundary, and pilots flying in below 3,500 feet could simply talk to the tower – and delays were completely removed.

Why doesn’t the Williamtown Tower “own” the airspace to Nobbys – or at least over the coast? I understand there was a move at one time to follow international practice and have Australian radar towers control the airspace to the first step of the zone. This has happened at Sydney Airport to the Botany Bay heads, but that is about it.

How is it that at airports in other countries, no matter what traffic is present, a VFR aircraft can fly in similar airspace in VMC conditions without being held?

When the airspace becomes a CTAF, with situations when there can be more than one IFR airline aircraft at a time, why is it that a traffic information service suffices?

The more I am told about this the more I am convinced that it is exactly as I originally said – absolute dismal leadership from the military people in Canberra. Proper procedures even copied from a country such as New Zealand would completely solve the problem.

There they are, flying around in F/A-18s, which I understood came from the United States, but they are not prepared to follow any of the US enlightened airspace procedures. Wouldn’t you think that one of them would lift the phone and speak to one of the military ATCs in the USA?

Then again, asking advice is not the way to go for people who lack ability and self-confidence.

[Klaus Fuchs]

Dick really has a bee in his bonnet. It's almost like he's on a wind up mission. And becoming increasingly abusive with his opinion of "the military people in Canberra" - almost slanderous one might say.

I do believe it was Dick, though, who allegedly invested close to half the Australian average annual wage in order to uncover the identity of a dick-bashing ppruner. So beware folks.... dick-bashing is not without its consequences. But I digress

Dick
Without knowing all the ins and outs of WLM, I do believe TWR owns the circuit area overland under VMC, with this airspace taken back by approach when instrument recoveries are required due weather. So you are incorrect in your assumption that TWR doesn't own any airspace - it's just not the bit that interests you.

[CaptainMidnight]

I question the wisdom of airing this sort of thing to the general public.

Most think light aircraft drivers are people with expensive toys, often causing noise and making a nuisance of themselves.

And if Mr & Mrs Public watched the Top Gun series on SBS, they probably now think that all the folk at places like WLM are highly trained professionals doing a serious community service to the country including potentially putting their lives on the line for us, so if a lighty including Dick Smith gets held up or diverted - so what? Whose activity provides the greater community service?

[Maggott17]

It does not sound like you were not being separated from the Metroliner Dick.

It sounds like you were being separated from the WLM CTR, with not just one Metroliner in it at the time.

Take in all the facts Dick, not just the ones that appear convenient to your argument.

Have you ever been supersonic Dick? It takes a little while to slow down. But I wouldn't let a jet that can go supersonic get on YOUR six mate.

[OpsNormal]

Maggott17 wrote:

Have you ever been supersonic Dick? It takes a little while to slow down.

There are no (intentional) transonic or supersonic operations within, or anywhere near, for that matter.... the WLM CTA, so what is the point you are trying to make (apart from the obvious that all you've posted for is to join the mob mentality...)?

All S/S ops take place a set distance off-shore. When Salt Ash fires up there are abrupt vertical manouvres, but in all honesty the lowest they ever seem to get in there is around 1500'. How do I know? I live next to it and enjoy the show out my back windows daily.

Klaus Fuchs wrote:

And becoming increasingly abusive with his opinion of "the military people in Canberra" - almost slanderous one might say.

Rubbish. They answer to the general public through the incumbent government. Dick asked a question and is due an answer. He does have a valid point in many ways.

I (like many others) have operated in (at some stage or other over recent years) most of the Military Control Zones in this country and in all honesty by far the most "different" to the normal operations is Williamtown. Do not (for even a moment) get me wrong, there are some great controllers there, just some very peculiar methods used locally from time to time.

One instance, bear in mind this is RPT ops: Had a request to change level due wx refused while an approach/departure controller was having a "light hearted" conversation with a visiting military aircraft inbound around 25-30nm the other side of the aerodrome. Came back with "Require FL140 immediately"..... her first response was "Why do you need FL140 due wx?" so then I had to explain myself without the time to do so....

It all comes down to training and education as to what civil aircraft need. If we all take a big breath and try and see it from the other's point of view you never know, change just may happen if you can all sit down and agree. For those of you unaware, The WLM CTR is a big roadblock to much of the civil VFR traffic heading north out of Bankstown and has significant impact on Cessnock and Maitland as well.

Klaus Fuchs also wrote:

Without knowing all the ins and outs of WLM, I do believe TWR owns the circuit area overland under VMC, with this airspace taken back by approach when instrument recoveries are required due weather. So you are incorrect in your assumption that TWR doesn't own any airspace - it's just not the bit that interests you.

Incorrect at the moment. Just yesterday was "Cleared the ILS and contact the tower at 11 DME" when we had been in IMC from around FL110 all the way down to when the HIALS swum into view at around 400 feet. Unless they are trying something new?

I know Dick Bashing is a sport to some of you, but in all honesty there are easier ways to handle traffic than "Hold at" or "Clearance not available". If civil controllers can do it on a daily basis then why do (some and only some) military controllers find it difficult to do the same thing?

Regards,

OpsN.;)

[Dick Smith]

CaptainMidnight, why would the general public want aircraft being held orbiting at 500 feet over a busy beach? Surely they would understand that if there was a chance of an engine failure or some other problem, the aircraft may have to land on the beach and could injure or kill people.

Klaus Fuchs, I’m simply stating the facts and there is nothing slanderous about that. Also, I was told by certain military people in Canberra that changes would be made – as they themselves believed that the changes were necessary.

When the changes didn’t go ahead, why didn’t they at least have the ethics to state why? That is what most people would do.

The tower may “own” the circuit area, however it doesn’t “own” the airspace to the first control step – which is at an amazing 24 miles. I suggest you look at the Jepp charts around the world and see if you can find “tower airspace” which goes to 24 miles at ground level. I’m not talking about restricted airspace, I’m talking about the airspace they activate when they have no military operations at all, but are simply providing a service to a Metro.

It is amazing how you defend the status quo. In other words, there is not the slightest hint that we could actually look at doing it better.

Maggott17, once again I am not referring to being held because of military traffic. I’m talking about being held because of a Metro. This is the same type of aircraft operating at many CTAFs in Australia without air traffic control, in obviously high levels of safety – receiving self-announced traffic information broadcasts.

I point out that if the tower airspace was Class D and went to the control zone boundary, a traffic information service would be all that is required under ICAO.

[Dick Smith]

Some will probably remember hearing of the horrific accident on 9 August 1981, where a Cessna 210 with an instrument rated pilot with a senior commercial licence was forced to fly in bad weather around the Williamtown restricted area. The BASI report is here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/MDX.php).

Particularly note that the aircraft was flying from Coolangatta to Bankstown – which would normally take it through Williamtown – however the pilot flight planned inland via Craven, Singleton and Mr McQuoid “in order to avoid controlled and military restricted areas surrounding Williamtown.”

The poor pilot, no doubt thinking of his soon to be doomed passengers, attempted to get a clearance through the Williamtown zone. Now imagine the situation. Terrible weather, knowing that you are going to be forced into the turbulence in the lee of Barrington Tops – when you could fly at low level down the coast.

At one stage it was arranged for him to get a clearance through Williamtown, but then:

Some 8 minutes after passing Taree the pilot advised that he would continue on his planned track rather than hold to the north of Williamtown pending the issue of a clearance. (My underlining).

Everyone died and the plane and bodies have never been found. Have a look at this letter (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/MDX_police_letter.php) from a retired NSW Police Officer who spent many years searching for the bodies so that the families could have closure. Note that this letter was written on 18 July 2005. Since then, Peter Anforth has died.

I will ask a question. If it had been the Chief of the Air Force who had gone missing over Barrington Tops, do you think money would have been spent on finding the crash site and his body? Too right - just as a large amount of money was correctly spent in Fiji recovering the Black Hawk helicopter which crashed off the back of HMAS Kanimbla.

It is interesting that over 25 years ago a pilot was prepared to fly in a far more dangerous situation because he obviously knew that he could be held in orbits in bad weather waiting for a clearance that he may never get.

Yes, there are certainly people in Canberra who have blood on their hands. I wonder how many more accidents (such as the small plane that was forced down into the water near Port Stephens – luckily without loss of life) will happen before modern international procedures are introduced.

[botero]

Dick what is your agenda here? :confused:

This is your second thread on this and I'm not sure whether you are interested in pursuing senior Air Force officers for their 'incompetence', or an air space issue at 1 geographical point where you have had to personally hold for clearance.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"... was forced to fly in bad weather around the Williamtown restricted area"

Oh come on Dick, why do you do this?

I am not averse to giving ATC the occassional serve when I feel that I have been treated less than reasonably (and don't get me started on CASA), but YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY BLAME ATC FOR THIS ACCIDENT.

I remember it well, and I remember thinking at the time that the pilot's decision making appearred to be terribly flawed.

A single engine aircraft, with minimal redundancy provision, at night, flying on a NGT VFR plan, above the freezing level, with moderate icing forcast in cloud, and a current SIGMET for severe turbulence east of the ranges - and he opts to fly over the Barrington Tops cause he can't get an immediate clearance through Williamstown?????

It would seem to me that the only sensible place for that aeroplane at that time of day, in those conditions - was on the ground.

This appears to be a classic case of "got to get there -itis".

It also illustrates why, inspite of the many sensible things you come out with in support of GA in Oz, your credibility with the industry is pretty sus.

I fly some pretty hard core SE IFR in the Bo, but I would NOT have made that flight!

Dr :8

[Ancient Rotorhead]

I have held a licence for 46 years. Old - but current!

If my memory serves correctly, the Class 3 Instrument Rating was limited to Outside Controlled Airspace. Perhaps this had some bearing on the pilot's decision.............

Otherwise, FTDK's post nailed it right between the eyes.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"If my memory serves correctly, the Class 3 Instrument Rating was limited to Outside Controlled Airspace"

Thanks Rotorhead! I've been at this for 35 years - had the Class 1, Class 2 and Class 4 nailed, but be damned if I could recall what the Class 3 was all about.

Dr :8

[Dick Smith]

Botero, you say:

Dick what is your agenda here? My agenda is straightforward if you will open your mind. That is, to get proper procedures introduced into Australia so aircraft do not have to flight plan unnecessarily around military airspace. I can afford the added cost of the holding – many can’t.

It is not covered by the BASI report but I was told at the time that the pilot would have known that the chance of getting a VFR clearance through that airspace was almost nil.

ForkTailedDrKiller, I’m not giving ATC a serve at all. I’m giving a serve to the people who are in charge of bringing in modern airspace and procedures into Australia. I have been told a number of times by senior military people that they agree that the procedures are out of date and they have informed me that the procedures would be updated. These people were fibbing as there has been no measurable change.

People lost their lives in this horrific accident and it could happen again tomorrow because most VFR pilots coming in from the north would not even dare to request a clearance through the Williamtown zone.

Of course, you cannot fly the VFR lane under Night VFR procedures.

Why has no effort been made to locate the plane and recover the pilots so the relatives can have closure? Surely they must have a pretty exact radar position on where the plane went down.

I also point out that the pilot had a senior commercial licence and over 3,000 hours.

[Dick Smith]

Ancient Rotorhead, if it did have a bearing on the pilot’s decision, that can only be because he was fearful that he would not get a VFR clearance through the Williamtown zone along the coast. Why else would he have flight planned VFR to the west of Williamtown where the weather was obviously worse?

I met an American couple once who tried to get a VFR clearance through Williamtown above 5,000 feet on a CAVOK day. They said it was like Oliver asking for more. They were forced to drop to 500 feet into the salt spray and fly the lane.

Yes, when the “A team” is on you may get a VFR clearance through the Willy zone, but that is problematic. In a British MATZ or in US military Class C you would fly across the top VFR with no restrictions.

Why would that bloke have ever wanted to go inland towards the bad weather if he had thought for a second that he would have been able to fly VFR along the coast above the lowest safe altitude? The answer is simple – he knew it was highly unlikely.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"... I was told at the time that the pilot would have known that the chance of getting a VFR clearance through that airspace was almost nil"

then the aircraft should have stayed on the ground at Coolangatta or landed at Taree. Tracking over the Barrington Tops in those forecast conditions was NOT a viable option.

Forcast freezing level below the Lowest Safe Altitude is a NO GO flag for me!

I have never transited Williamstown airspace IFR, VFR or any R - but I cut my teeth in Amberley airspace and have plenty of experience with Townsville military control. There was certainly a period some years ago when a single military aircraft appearing on the radar meant that the VFR riff-raff were sent hell, west and crooked. I recall one day when I was lined up on the extended centreline of 07 about 20 miles out in C210, when a low level Herc called up on the appr freq inbound - I eventually landed 30 minutes latter. However, overall I would have to say that I have had very few problems with military control.

Having to go around the restricted areas to the west of Townsville when active is a pain for both VFR and IFR traffic - but they are shooting stuff out there!

Sorry, but if Joe pilot can't afford to fly a slight diversion or do a couple of orbits when required, there is always LSA!

Dr :8

[RatsoreA]

I normally just reserve myself to reading these forums, but Dick, your comment of 'Why has no effort been made to find the remains' has left me utterly gobsmacked!

I normally don't have a problem with you. People are bound to winge about people in high public profile positions, and have always taken the people who critisie you with a grain of salt, but when you say things like that, I feel I must say something.

Firstly, if you had ever spoken to Peter, (I had, on several occaisions regarding MDX) you would have been WELL aware that a signifigant SAR effort was undertaken at the time, and various communtiy groups continue to this day to undertake searchs to this day for the remains. A simple google search would have told you this information. To say that no effort has been made is ignorant in the extreme. I have read many government, police and private reports, research and interviews regarding the disappearance of MDX, and the BASI report is the thinest and briefest one of them all. One such report compiled by the late Mr Anforth contained all known information and was regularly updated until his death of places that have been searched. It contained all known interviews with locals that heard the plane, the ATC transcript and the last known radar posistion, which is not considered where the aircraft came down, due to Radar shadowing effects associated with the Barrington Tops (Although this site has been searched regardless).

You complain that not enough has been done. Surely you as a person of influence and independant means could organise your own search. I have maintained for many years that even if the aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and fire, there should be enough ferrous metal in the engine to be detected by some sort of helo-boune magnometer or such other instrument(of course, i could be totally wrong in this assertion).

I would suggest you obtain a copy of Mr Anforths research and read it before making any further comments about the lamenatable end to final flight of VH-MDX.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"... most VFR pilots coming in from the north would not even dare to request a clearance through the Williamtown zone"

Is this just a training issue?

Maybe every VFR pilot coming in from north or south SHOULD request a clearance - to make a point.

Dr :8

[Bob Murphie]

1976 in a B33 denied clearance.

1978 in a Grumman Tiger denied clearance.

1978 in a PA-32 denied clearance.

One of these flights was NVFR after a flight plan lodged 5 hours prior. Another, a weekend day VFR when a glider was flying. The other I think was just barstardisation toward GA.

31 years, and I still wouldn't trust the troglodytes at Williamtown Dick.

[zlin77]

I remember the night of the accident as I was flying an Aero-Med B80 from Sydney to Dubbo, my aircraft was fitted with boots and hot-props etc. Cloud tops on the initial track to Mudgee were about 8,000 feet with moderate icing encountered. I can only assume that the track from Taree to Singleton would have presented similar conditions, I was surprised when I heard of the missing 210 on the news the next day, it wasn't a night for S.E. flying unless the aircraft was fitted with full ice protection. Hopefully one day someone will stumble over the wreckage to give closure to the families, but in the case of "The Southern Cloud" lost in The Snowy Mountains, I think nearly 30 years elapsed before the wreckage was found.

[Mr. Hat]

Why Dick? Because its just a 210 with a few people on board. They ain't service personnel, they're just tax payers: not important enough.

[RatsoreA]

Actually, one of the pax was Ken Price, Deputy head of the Sydney water Police at the time of his disappearance.

Some believe that it was possible that it could have crashed in the Chicester Resivoir further to the south and east.

[eagle 86]

No-one has to do anything!!
"The least experienced press on, while the more experienced turn back to join the most experienced who didn't take-off in the first place".
Likewise, modern day "adventurers" should pay huge insurance premiums to help defray the costs of rescue when they drop out of their depth! If you want to take risks don't EXPECT help when it all turns to sh1t!
GAGS
E86
PS I've spent 40 plus years in the rescue business!
PPS As an aside - there are some interesting rumours about this flight!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"I’m not giving ATC a serve at all. I’m giving a serve to the people who are in charge of bringing in modern airspace and procedures into Australia."

OK Dick, I apologise for misinterpreting your intent.

None-the-less, I think you picked a very poor example to illustrate your point!

Dr :8

[RatsoreA]

http://vhmdx.*************/2007_11_01_archive.html

Go here for a unbiased factual account of what happened.

For some reason, it keeps removing the address. The ***'s are ******** . com

[ozbiggles]

Mr Smith and Mr Hat
Thankyou for providing the brief accident report. The one that states the clearance was delayed as ATC tried to ascertain what the weather was like in the area they were going to clear the aircraft through. PLEASE point out to me where it says it was delayed due to any other reason that might back up your cause. In fact it seems to me that ATC both civil and military may have been trying to help this pilot out rather than see any harm come to them, to suggest anything else is in my honest opinion is disgusting.
As a military pilot I have been involved in SAR and even found a crashed helicopter on one search. I have also been involved in plenty of beacon searches offering my aircraft en route. Every military person involved in aviation I know would continue a SAR until they dropped, the same as any civilian pilot. Im sure every effort in the world was made to find this aircraft and the people in it. Even if you and Mr Hat were in it.
We would get involved in many more if we could but we are not asked to.
I really do suggest you take this up with the people in Canberra privately, because every time you air your agenda here you just insult a lot of people who pride themselves on their service for their country.

[AirBumps]

Dick,

Would you please give this a rest. Its Williamtown Air Force Base. Note its an AIR FORCE BASE. If you have to hold for a few minutes, take along a can of Harden-Up and drink it while your waiting.

[bentleg]

ATC both civil and military may have been trying to help this pilot out rather than see any harm come to them


I agree. The pilot wasnt willing to wait and made a crazy decision to cross the mountains.


I’m not giving ATC a serve at all. I’m giving a serve to the people who are in charge of bringing in modern airspace and procedures into Australia


If that's the case it doesn't come across that way.


Why would that bloke have ever wanted to go inland towards the bad weather if he had thought for a second that he would have been able to fly VFR along the coast above the lowest safe altitude? The answer is simple – he knew it was highly unlikely

If that is so, and it may well have been, the decision to go inland into that sort of weather was crazy. Why not go back and land at Taree? No, he had to get home........


I have been told a number of times by senior military people that they agree that the procedures are out of date and they have informed me that the procedures would be updated. These people were fibbing as there has been no measurable change.

That may be so, but this case study does not demonstrate it.

[Dick Smith]

Bentleg, it looks as if in this particular case that it was the “perception” of the pilot that he would be refused or delayed in a clearance along the coast that resulted in him originally flight planning around the airspace and then not being prepared to wait for a clearance that he possibly perceived would never come.

Wouldn’t you think that the military would have issued advice after these probably needless fatalities that if VFR pilots encountered weather difficulties, they should immediately call Willy Approach and the military would facilitate a clearance wherever possible to save people being killed?

I understand that no such announcement has been issued in the intervening 25 years. Most pilots have a perception today that to get a VFR clearance through Williamtown when it is active is all but impossible unless you fly at 500 feet along the lane.

We have talked about the holding which takes place at Nobbys at 500 feet because a Metro may be coming in or departing. Why can’t ATC vector the VFR plane over the top of the airfield at, say, 2,500 feet? Surely there could be no safer place. Class D airspace in the USA only goes to 2,500 feet and VFR can transit across the top between 2,500 feet and 18,000 feet in Class E airspace.

I believe the reason the military don’t offer a clearance at any level VFR across the top of Williamtown is that it is simply not within their perception that holding an aircraft has any cost or safety connotations.

I transited the Williamtown airspace twice this weekend – once on Saturday morning and then on Sunday afternoon. It was a CTAF with more traffic than you ever hear during the week – everything from Airbuses landing to Virgin 737s departing. There was even a lone Robin aircraft (owned by an RAAF person?) flying locally from the airfield.

There was no air traffic control at all, so this surely shows the utter hypocrisy of the military hierarchy who state that when air traffic control appears, aircraft must be held. If they thought for a second that this was necessary for safety, surely they would have some arrangement for the weekends when their own personnel are travelling to and from Williamtown in the airline aircraft. No doubt they have no special arrangement for the weekends because they accept that the operation is safe.

Presumably the holding is because of some 1950s procedure that has never been updated.

I will look forward to advice on why, on a CAVOK day, when the only traffic is a civilian Metro, a VFR aircraft can’t be given a clearance over the top of Williamtown airfield from the south to the north rather than being held at Nobbys.

[Dick Smith]

Bob55, it seems like a lifetime ago but on 20 December you stated:

1000 FT by the coast doesn't cut it for ATC standards. You'd need 1500FT by the coast, and only if the VFR was operating not above 500 FT and 1 mile east of the coast.

Bob55, I have recently been advised by an FAA expert that the US requirement in Class C airspace for IFR to VFR vertical separation is 500 feet – i.e. the height of a 50 story building – and the horizontal separation when going through the same level is target resolution. Why do we need to have “standards” which are far different to those proven in other leading aviation countries – i.e. the USA and Canada?

Why wouldn’t air traffic controllers here want to follow modern international procedures? I know if I were an air traffic controller and I heard that another leading aviation country (where Qantas flies and tens of thousands of Australians have holidays each year) had a less onerous and more flexible standard, I would certainly want to consider it.

It seems to me from reading these posts that there are many people with closed minds. In effect, if a “standard” developed, say, in the 1930s, that is what we should stick with forever more and never ever query or move forward.

I ask the experts here – why don’t we follow the proven FAA separation standards between IFR and VFR in Class C airspace?

[Awol57]

We do for Vertical Separation. V1 can be applied between IFR and VFR providing both are MTOW less than 7000kg and a few other things. The lateral separation is obviously somewhat different here in Australia.

[garudadude]

Dick, I was listening in to your conversation (diatribe) with WLM ATC on my brand new Bearcat BC92XLT scanner.... very professional stuff, I think you gave them a true indication of the type of guy they are dealing with.

I'm a little befuddled by your safety qaundry on the day, as I am not a trained helicopter pilot, why exactly would you be cutting orbits in your Agusta Helicopter??

Surely the brilliant aviator that you are - with the global situational awareness that you had at the time (you imply in your comments that you knew what was happening on WLM tower, WLM Centre......) - would have considered the safety of the public (your primary issue) and, um, hovered??

[ozbiggles]

USA airspace system working well today.
5 Killed in mid air near an airfield.
In reality it doesn't matter really what type of airspace it happens in. And yes we have to wait for the official report, but the media is saying it was an uncontrolled airport.
Computer simulations will run on 'simulated' information and tell you its all safe.....to a certain percentage.
5 deceased people is reality.
See and be seen my backside
Some people get this, some people don't.
May they RIP

[Dick Smith]

Ozbiggles, are you suggesting that because there has been a midair collision in the United States that we don’t update any of our 1930s procedures?

You may know that the US has approximately 15 midairs per year, and we have on average one midair per year. The US has about 15 times the number of aircraft in roughly the same airspace. Some experts say that the collision risk goes up with the square of the traffic density. Whether this is true or not, it shows that the US airspace system is extraordinarily safe when you consider the weather conditions, the high mountain ranges, and the very high density of traffic.

I find it fascinating that a small group of people will argue in every way they can to keep the status quo – i.e. never make a change.

A good example is in Airspace 2000, we attempted to bring in a recommendation that when on a two-way airway, aircraft should fly a small amount (0.1 nautical miles) to the right of track. This would help to prevent the type of accident which happened in Brazil on 29 September 2006, where 155 people died because air traffic control or pilot error put two aircraft in exactly the same airspace at the same time. Before RVSM and highly accurate GPS, the chance of them colliding would have been minimal. Now it is a foregone certainty.

It will be interesting to see when ICAO overcomes the people who are trying to stop change and brings in some type of requirement to fly at a certain distance to the right of track to help to prevent this type of terrible midair collision.

[Dick Smith]

Awol57, it is not just the lateral separation that is different. It is clear that the vertical separation is too as the US doesn’t have the 7,000 kg requirement for 500 foot separation.

[Dark Knight]

Enough Already!!!!! - Dick, as AirBumps succinctly said:

Would you please give this a rest. Its Williamtown Air Force Base. Note its an AIR FORCE BASE. If you have to hold for a few minutes, take along a can of Harden-Up and drink it while your waiting.

Go Away Pulease!!!!!!!! and take your crappy diatribes with you!!!!!!!!!!!

DK

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

This from Newcastle Airport management today...


Newcastle Airport is safe
Tuesday, 22 January 2008
A study conducted by the aviation safety regulator, Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in October 2007 determined that safety procedures undertaken at Newcastle Airport, including those for traffic control at weekends, meet safety standards. Newcastle Airport participated in this study together with airline operators and pilots.

Claims made by Mr Dick Smith in today’s Newcastle Herald that that the Airport was not safe on the weekend as the traffic control tower at RAAF Base, Williamtown was not manned, are unfounded.

“Mr Smith may not be aware of the full circumstances surrounding the operations of Newcastle Airport RAAF Base, Williamtown.
“Newcastle Airport works very closely with all government departments and regulators relating to aviation safety.
“A recent study undertaken by CASA in October last year determined that Newcastle Airport met safety standards.
“Air traffic control for Newcastle Airport is supplied by RAAF Base, Williamtown, who provide a world-class service. On the weekends when the tower is not operating, pilots use a common frequency traffic advisory to manage aircraft safety. All pilots are trained in this procedure – and it has been used successfully at Newcastle Airport for a number of years. It is completely safe and is endorsed by CASA.”

Mr Hughes noted that Mr Smith’s comment that there is an increase in aircraft movements on a weekend is incorrect. “There is up to 27% less scheduled aircraft movements on a weekend compared with a weekday. Furthermore the total number of aircraft movements for 2007 was less than that of 1998. This is because in the past decade the aircraft have become larger, accommodating more passengers.
“Newcastle Airport is an important asset to the Hunter region. The Airport injects more than $250 million each year into the economy and supports more than 2,100 jobs. The Airport is committed to the region’s growth and prosperity – shown by the current infrastructure development in the $10 million apron expansion.
“The Airport will continue to safely welcome passengers from all round Australia every day of the week.”

[marty1468]

I've mostly flown through Williamtown airspace on weekends and i feel the CTAF system is completely safe. I have used the low level VFR route through the airspace during the week also and again had no troubles but i haven't been at "altitude" and asked for a clearance "direct" so i have no idea if this is even approved for PPL's and non RPT. Has anyone had any dealings in this area and did you have to hold or refused permission? As an ex-RAAFie from Williamtown i also know that the airspace is very busy mostly in daylight hours but whenever ATC is operating, that means there are fast movers in the area. No ATC, no fast movers operating.

I'm now in Brisbane doing my CPL and i often fly through Amberley and Oakey Mil CTR's "direct" and have never had to hold yet. I imagine WLM would be the same but as i mentioned, i never tried back when i was low hour PPL.

[Dick Smith]

FoxtrotAlpha18, thanks for posting the Newcastle Airport Management press release.

Why don’t you see if you can get hold of a copy of the so-called “safety study”? There is a proven study which has been used for decades in Australia in relation to such airports. It is called the Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria for Airport Traffic Control Towers. It is based in the US criteria and it has been used in the last few years to justify the continuance of air traffic control at Hamilton Island, and also the closure of the tower at Wagga.

You will find they haven’t used this formula this time because it will clearly show that the tower should be manned.

The so-called “recent study undertaken by CASA” is most likely just a number of opinions and statements without actually looking at the cost of manning the tower and the number of lives that could be potentially saved – which is the only way you can do this properly.

I understand that there have been some very serious incidents at Williamtown in the last 18 months – caused by the “fail/dangerous”, “blind calling” procedures that do not exist anywhere in the world that I know of.

Dark Knight, you can tell me to go away, but I can assure you that there are many airline pilots who are scared of losing their jobs if they posted their true thoughts on this site.

Manning the air traffic control tower on weekends would cost less than 50 cents per passenger. Would you be prepared to pay 50 cents for proper ATC? I certainly would to protect myself and my family.

In relation to the alleged reduction of scheduled aircraft movements on a weekend, this may be so, however the amount of light aircraft overflying the airport on weekends increases dramatically – after all, that is when most lighties go flying.

Dark Knight, yes I agree it is an Air Force base, but it happens to be used by 1.5 million civilian passengers per year. Surely proper and efficient ATC can be provided when the RPT jet airlines are present, and surely this should not mean delaying other aircraft when conditions are CAVOK.

Isn’t it interesting that Albury (with 212,000 passengers per year) and Coffs Harbour (with 323,000 passengers per year) have 7 day per week control towers, however Williamtown (which is now moving to 1.5 million passengers per year) only has a control tower on weekdays?

It looks to me as if we go from the most ridiculous 1930s type of Colonial India "over control" during the week, to an absolutely nothing laissez-faire free for all on the weekends. If they are not even game to do a proper study or to release the safety study they have done, you know that something dishonest is going on.

[Dick Smith]

I have asked two important questions on two different posts.

I will look forward to advice on why, on a CAVOK day, when the only traffic is a civilian Metro, a VFR aircraft can’t be given a clearance over the top of Williamtown airfield from the south to the north rather than being held at Nobbys. I ask the experts here – why don’t we follow the proven FAA separation standards between IFR and VFR in Class C airspace?

Has the silence been because most air traffic controllers who read this site believe that we should update to modern international procedures, but if they say this they might be lynched by the few whose minds are set in concrete?

[Dark Knight]

Dick

No I am not prepared to pay another 50 cents for ATC because I am already paying for this and much more every time I pay my taxes and certainly when I purchase a ticket.

The charges shown below for Newcastle and Mackay (which is used an illustration and is more detailed to the total airport charges - at any airport buying a coke and/or sandwich at highly outrageous inflated prices reflects the charges levied by the airport operator to pay for operating their airport.)

Every ticket has included charges for ATC, CASA, BASI, etc, etc plus fuel surcharges, baggage charges, security charges, ad infinitum.

but I can assure you that there are many airline pilots who are scared of losing their jobs if they posted their true thoughts on this site.

What a load of Bollocks! If this is true then it is a reflection of the a weak kneed breed of airline pilot we have today which if correct would have my family & I more worried than your supposed concern of `lack of proper ATC' Having been an airline pilot around the world for 38 plus years it would seem my compatriots, without fear or favour, would do the same as one did years ago in telling the then Minister for Aviation (one Charlie Jones) to catch the next flight.

The instructions for operating into Williamtown shown below have been essentially thus since I was flying Chipmunks into/through there many years ago and operating various RPT aircraft in there for many years. It works pretty well which is not to say however, there is not room for improvement or keeping up with the times.

And, again, it is an Air Force Base ie it is theirs, thier rules and their trainset - if you want to play you play to their rules or not at all.

Now Dick answer me this - when you fly around the world to the all & many countries you have flown to whos rules do you fly to??

Yes - theirs, no questions, no queries, no correspondence will be entered into ie, their country, their rules their trainset - you want to play (fly there) these are OUR rules!

However (again) who is going to spend money on aviation? For all their talk to get elected, the history of Labor governments is abysmal relating to aviation.

How much will the punters pocket bear?

It looks to me as if we go from the most ridiculous 1930s type of Colonial India "over control" during the week, to an absolutely nothing laissez-faire free for all on the weekends. If they are not even game to do a proper study or to release the safety study they have done, you know that something dishonest is going on.

Bollocks again! When was the last time you experienced Colonial India Control? Given the lack of facilities they had they do a pretty good job and with the way India is progressing they will be way in front of this country within a short period of time. The comments about studies follows the argument of those who really have nought to contribute therefore suggest another study creating jobs for themselves or mates achieving little than another carbon producing, tree felling report to gather dust is some dark, hidden archive.

you know that something dishonest is going onanother Dick Smith conspiracy theory really too puerile to comment on!

Dick, who banged on & on about affordable safety?

I would suggest it is the opinion of many within the aviation industry that your `contributions' in the aviation industry have done far more damage than good for the industry achieving little other than dissent.

Please, Oh Please, go back to the North Pole and check how the ice is melting or something!
DK

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information for Itinerant aircraft
Reference: ERSA 2006 - Williamtown – Remarks
The following information is to assist those planning to visit Newcastle Airport.
Prior to your operation, you must obtain an approval number from RAAF Base Williamtown, Base Operations as detailed in ERSA. Once you have obtained your approval number, contact Newcastle Airport Operations for a parking allocation.
The Duty Operations Officer will require the following details of your itinerary / visit.
Name of operator;
Address/Phone number/Fax number;
Aircraft Type;
Aircraft Registration Number ;
ETA/ETD;
Special Requirements (ie Catering, Fuel etc.);
Passenger Numbers in/out;
RAAF Approval Number
Fees for Itinerant Aircraft
Terminal Passenger Charge $8.30 per passenger (arriving and departing) + GST
Apron Charge $5.00 per tonne based on MTOW (per aircraft landing) + GST
Minimum Apron Charge $25.00 + GST below 5 tonne per landing
Overnight Parking Charge $5.50 per tonne (after 2 Hours) per day based on MTOW with a minimum of $50.00 per aircraft + GST
Passenger Screening Charge Passenger screening fee will apply for all departing passengers as mandated
Marshalling $25.00 per aircraft + GST
NOTE:
All other charges will be negotiated between the aircraft operator and Newcastle Airport Ltd prior to the flight operating.
Aircraft service and baggage handling fees may apply.
Refer to ERSA for further details


Mackay Airport Charges
The following charges apply in respect of services shown from 1st January 2007 and are inclusive of GST.

Business Enterprise Permits
Description Costs
Gift, jewellery, fancy goods, newsagency and other sales $6103.45 pa
Self-drive car hire service $8413.93 pa
Tourist information centre (non selling) $81.48 pa
Any business enterprise not specified herein but
approved by the authority $500.83 pa
Aircraft Parking - Annual Charge for Permanently Allocated Bays
Description Base Rate
Per Square Metre of Parking Bay/s Occupied $11.35
Discount if paid Monthly 10%
Discount if paid Yearly 20%
CASUAL PARKING NO CHARGE.
Included in landing charge
Passenger Charge
Description Cost
Per passenger arriving or departing through the terminal $10.37
Cargo Charge
Description Cost
Goods discharged from or loaded from aircraft $39.56 Per Tonne
Landing Charge
Description Cost
ALL AIRCRAFT $10.16 Per Tonne
Bulk Landing Fee for aircraft permanently based on airport, a bulk landing fee is negotiable based on turnover
Discount base landing charge if paid Quarterly 10%
Discount base landing charge if paid Quarterly 15%
Discount base landing charge if paid Annually 25%
Minimum Landing Charge $11.00
Commonwealth Government Goods and Services Tax All invoice prices are charged inclusive of Commonwealth Government Goods and Services Tax (GST)

[garudadude]

Dick Smith, you state:

I have asked two important questions on two different posts.

Quote:
I will look forward to advice on why, on a CAVOK day, when the only traffic is a civilian Metro, a VFR aircraft can’t be given a clearance over the top of Williamtown airfield from the south to the north rather than being held at Nobbys.
Quote:
I ask the experts here – why don’t we follow the proven FAA separation standards between IFR and VFR in Class C airspace?
Has the silence been because most air traffic controllers who read this site believe that we should update to modern international procedures, but if they say this they might be lynched by the few whose minds are set in concrete?

I'm looking at 8 pages of the experts replying to you and giving you the advice that you had requested.... but you're still not happy and now Willytown is supposedly unsafe as a CTAF!
I reckon you shouldn't bother to ask questions if you already know everything.

[Pseudonymn]

For those unable to access a hard copy of The Newcastle Herald as mentioned in Post 156 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3854120&postcount=156) here is the link to the article concerned.

http://theherald.yourguide.com.au/news/local/general/aviator-dick-smith-warns-danger-zone/1166553.html

[Dick Smith]

Garudadude, the problem is that even though there have been 8 pages of comments, the two particular questions have not been answered.

Remember there was extensive discussion on why an aircraft should be held at Nobbys because the departing aircraft may have an engine failure. Surely if the VFR aircraft was given a clearance over the top of the airfield (say, at 3,500’) the problem created by an engine failure would not exist.

Regarding the separation standards, yes, there have been comments stating that the standards are different between Australia and North America, however no one has said why we can’t follow the more efficient FAA standards.

In relation to Williamtown being “supposedly unsafe as a CTAF” I have been consistent on this issue for over 20 years. That is, a proper cost benefit safety study should be used to decide when to move from a CTAF to a Class D tower. This criteria was originally introduced in the early 1990s.

If you don’t need any form of air traffic control (or even a UNICOM to confirm that the radio is working) for an airport which has 1.5 million passenger movements and a lot of VFR traffic flying through the airspace, where do you need a Class D tower?

I have never claimed to know the answer to the questions I have asked, but I am mystified as to why controllers would not want to follow proven practices from leading aviation countries if they are more efficient and give a high level of safety.

This issue is amazing. When I claimed that the tower at Avalon should be manned (with over 1 million passenger enplanements at the airport) I was generally rubbished – even by alleged airline pilots. When it became obvious that the establishment and disestablishment formula had never been applied to Avalon, people then attacked on other fronts.

I know the majority of pilots and air traffic controllers can understand what I’m getting at. That is, we have an air traffic control organisation which is obsessed with profits and bonuses, and we appear to have a safety regulator which is not prepared to stand up to them.
This all goes back to the lack of staffing – which would appear to me to be gross negligence.

PilotEyes, the reason Airservices Australia cannot man the tower on weekends is because the Air Force will not allow it. They will not allow civilian controllers in “their” tower. Why we have a completely separate civilian and military air traffic control system is beyond me.

[SM4 Pirate]

Why we have a completely separate civilian and military air traffic control system is beyond me.Do they have separate systems in the United States? Perhaps the Military could play hard ball and say civilians can no longer use our facilities effective DD/MM/YYYY; is that a possibility if you push too hard?

Maybe a better option is that the Hunter gets itself a new hub, with a fast rail/road infrastructure and becomes a real second Sydney option; not a pretend one?

As for not using "their" tower; well what happens at YSCB; is that still a military base? I heard Terry O'Connor (ASA spin doctor) saying using a temporary tower wasn't an option; well if the PR man knows that, then they must have had it on the agenda at some stage.

[Delay Approved]

Dick,

Your original complaint so far as I could see was regarding the procedures for the coastal VFR route and that you blamed senior military officials for those procedures.

Now it would appear that you have returned to your favourite themes of changing airspace classification and separation standards to be the same as the US and that this is the solution to the problems on the VFR route.

I'm sure you would be aware, but I will point it out anyway, the military don't make the separation standards, so I fail to see how it is the fault of senior military officials if the problem is the separation standards. While I am sure that there would be a military person (perhaps even a couple) who are part of the group who make these decisions it is a bit rich to blame them for everything.

Same goes with airspace classification. AIP/MATS clearly states that all military CTZ restricted areas at or below FL285 are class C airspace. Therefore it is not a matter of simply changing one military CTZ to a class D tower, it would involve much wider procedural changes. Again this is not the sole responsibility of senior military officials.

As for your other questions:

Sure, overflying aircraft at 3500 would solve the problem of an engine failure on departure, but it would create others. Light aircraft fly slowly (particularly helicopters....) and Hornets fly quickly. I am willing to bet that a light aircraft cruising through at that level would get in the way. Things are not always simple.

Regarding why ATC is required during the week but it is supposedly safe to operate on weekends with higher traffic levels (not that you have provided any proof of this other than your personal opinion) I would suggest that one reason would be funding. Military ATC has sufficient manning and funding to provide services for military aircraft. Thats their job, not to provide ATS for civilian aircraft. During the week when there is both around then civies get the bonus of ATC. That doesn't mean it is safer on the weekends, I would agree it probably isn't as safe, but that isn't the military's fault or problem. Perhaps you should try lobbying the new government for some more money instead.

[CaptainMidnight]

the reason Airservices Australia cannot man the tower on weekends is because the Air Force will not allow it. I suggest the real reasons are 1) Airservices don't have additional ATCs to staff the place and 2) who would pay for the considerable cost of their salaries, travel and facilities.

And don't say it is as simple as adding 50c to each ticket. There are not simple solutions to complex problems.Dick, I was listening in to your conversation (diatribe) with WLM ATC on my brand new Bearcat BC92XLT scanner.... very professional stuff, I think you gave them a true indication of the type of guy they are dealing with.If true, a disgrace. Chewing the ear of ATC and as a result distracting them from their work is a safety issue and therefore unforgiveable.

Exactly what was said?A good example is in Airspace 2000, we attempted to bring in a recommendation that when on a two-way airway, aircraft should fly a small amount (0.1 nautical miles) to the right of track. Do all aircraft capable of flying IFR routes have nav systems capable of offset tracking? No, I didn't think so ........ again simple solutions to complex problems. Manning the air traffic control tower on weekends I think in the industry you are very much alone with that proposal. GA have the freedom to operate in the area on weekends, and to propose activating the airspace instead and lose that freedom I think it is unlikely to get support from any group.

[Dick Smith]

CaptainMidnight, you state:

And don't say it is as simple as adding 50c to each ticket. There are not simple solutions to complex problems. The reason I have made a few dollars in business is that I have always looked for simple solutions for complex problems.

The civilian side of the airport charges an amount per head for people to land at Williamtown. If they added 50 cents per head, this would bring in between $500,000 and $750,000 per annum – an adequate amount to man a Class D tower during airline operations.

Regarding manning the tower, you state:

I think in the industry you are very much alone with that proposal. GA have the freedom to operate in the area on weekends, and to propose activating the airspace instead and lose that freedom I think it is unlikely to get support from any group. You seem to ignore the fact that I want the airspace activated and modern Class D procedures used – i.e. simply a traffic information service between IFR and VFR, and reasonable dimensions on the Class D airspace. If this existed there would be no measurable reduction in freedom for GA aircraft, and safety would be substantially improved.

By the way, once again you seem to resist change at just about every move. Instead of saying that some of the ideas are good and should be looked at, you basically say that the status quo should be maintained.

[Lodown]

basically say that the status quo should be maintained

It's not a status quo if it's not maintained.

I just experienced deja vu all over again.

[crisper]

Quote:
The civilian side of the airport charges an amount per head for people to land at Williamtown. If they added 50 cents per head, this would bring in between $500,000 and $750,000 per annum – an adequate amount to man a Class D tower during airline operations.
simply a traffic information service between IFR and VFR

Based on those figures Dick, Why not provide a CAGRO for RPT ops? The hours could be flexible and at a fraction of the cost of a class D tower yet still provide the level of traffic information you want. For example, it costs around $200,000 per annum for the service 11 hours per day 7 days a week - and obviously no where near these hours would be required at Willy. Seems like a much more cost effective solution to me.

[MrApproach]

1. Civil ATCs cannot retain rating endorsements in a weekend only tower. Anyway Tower services (RWY and TWY control) are probably not required. The US would provide a Class E terminal airspace service to the ground assuming the ILS was operational (Has it got an ILS?). If Williamtown is that busy a smart country would make it a civil airport with a small military component, the US do it all over the place with ANG units. IN Pommyland the military airspace is 5nm around the field with a short pan handle along the most used instrument approach. Easy to avoid if your VFR but a call to the Approach unit and they will keep you clear of their spam cans.

2. Ergo there is no reason in the world of real air traffic control to not allow a VFR transit of the CTR either by design or using procedures. (Its particularly easy if you have radar!) However in Oz woe betide a blue suiter letting a VFR lightie get in the way of the Sqn Ldr and his jet propelled spam can.

3. If you read many of the other posts on Pprune, Oz had the "best ATC system in the world" until someone came along and rattled the cage of complacency. Why doesn't anybody else complain? Is it because they have never seen good ATC systems operating or is it because they have to live in a world where they have to make a living? That is, make friends and influence people.

Keep up the good work Dick!

[CaptainMidnight]

you seem to resist change at just about every move. Nope.

Just a firm believer that in a particular scenario the class of airspace and level of air traffic service should be determined by thorough safety & cost-benefit analysis, not rhetoric or simply copying something that somewhere else in the world appears to work for their local environment.

And critical elements are widespread industry support for whatever falls out of such analysis and thorough education, both lacking in virtually all airspace reform in this country since the 1990's, resulting in rollbacks and amendments - and $M's down the drain.

[ozbiggles]

Mr Smith
I'm not and I haven't read anyone else arguing for the status quo if there is a better (ie SAFER and more efficient) way of doing business
I think you will find people have offered you reasons for why maybe it is the way it is.
I'm sure however you may have got a more supportive reception if you had approached this subject a different way, rather than make a range of accusations and off siding most people in defence including blaming them for an accident 26 years ago that the report would indicate a rather different cause for and having a go at Angus's reputation for telling the truth.
And your wrong about civilian controllers not being allowed in military towers, there are plenty of them now. Just not working for air services as there is a different operating system.I'm sure if ASA think there is a dollar in it there would be an arrangement made to man the same tower somehow.
I'm not sure that if the US has 15 midairs a year, even with 15,20,40 times the traffic that their system works safely. It may mean no one holds over a beach but one of the best quotes in aviation is if you think safety is expensive, try having an accident.

[ozbiggles]

Now having done a little bit of research on Google with Vh-mdx
For Mr Smith (post 128) and Mr Hat (140)
The summary of the search efforts for VH-MDX indicate it involved over 400 people, went for 10 Days of air searching (including RAAF aircraft)and even more of foot slogging including the army. At the time it was one of the BIGGEST search efforts ever conducted in Australia. it included complete aerial photography of the area provided by the RAAF and satellite photos provided by the USAF.
I offer you BOTH the opportunity to withdraw your remarks about the effort that was conducted to find these people by the defence forces.

[MaxspeedSlowdown]

Civil ATCs cannot retain rating endorsements in a weekend only tower.

Rubbish.

Camden is normally W/E & public holidays only.

Avalon is manned infrequently on a as needed/requested basis.

[Dick Smith]

Ozbiggles, you state:

I'm sure however you may have got a more supportive reception if you had approached this subject a different way Unfortunately I’ve been there and done that. I’ve been involved now for over 18 years in attempting to get some basic changes to the way the military operates their airspace. The majority of that time has been spent behind the scenes, going to meetings, talking to people on the phone, writing “sensitive” letters and massaging peoples’ egos – all to absolutely no avail.

Even though I have been promised on numerous occasions by senior people in the military that changes will be made (as they actually agree that changes should be made), nothing has happened. These people do not even have the ethics to drop me a line or give me a phone call and explain why they have changed their minds, or why they have not been able to succeed.

My new method will continue until something happens. That is, the military announces that they have no intention of making any changes and explain the reasons, or they go ahead and make the changes that they have said they would. Nothing could be fairer than this.

MrApproach, I thank you very much for your post. I hope everyone reads it at least twice. You are absolutely spot on. The reason people don’t complain is as you have said - it is twofold. Many Aussie pilots and ATCs have never experienced how an efficient ATC system can operate. That is, one which provides a high level of safety but does not add unnecessarily to cost. Also there are people who agree that changes should be made, but are simply not prepared to say this because their careers would be curtailed. I fully understand this. These people give me a lot of support behind the scenes. One day when they retire I believe they will become more vocal.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Why not ring the number in ERSA and ask for the best time to transit BEFORE you launch.

Coastal NBB to BRI is probably one of the best scenics you can do. Did it once 25 years ago and thoroughly enjoyed it. Best time is hour after first light, absolutely magic:ok:

[ozbiggles]

Mr Smith
I'm not talking about the people high up who make the decisions. I'm talking about the coal face workers. ie the ATCs in the area and the broader defence community, who would be more inclined to do what they can if you offered a polite point of view with practical suggestion. Rather than general broad ranging insults that you throw out there that are false ie accusing defence of not putting in a 100% effort in the search for MDX which it is easy enough with a google search to prove is a FALSE insinuation.
Then there is the one about a lot of defence people being no good in business
or leadership
or ATC ie As and Bs teams
or the chief lying to you etc etc
This is why there is VERY little incentive to spend valuable time trying to assist you save 5 mins holding, at least from the worker bee level. Those higher up can speak for themselves.

[Gundog01]

Richard

I’ve been involved now for over 18 years in attempting to get some basic changes to the way the military operates their airspace.

You have hit the nail on the head old mate. The military owns the Williamtown airspace. Anything you see on VTC or TAC charts etc is owned by the military. They operate how they see fit, within CASA regulations. Your "plan" (well tought out as it might be) to clear lighties overhead at 3500 is sketchy at best. Even you couldn't count the number of times I have descended from the western airspace to overhead the airfield (which just happens to be around the 3000-5000 mark). Hawks practsing PFL's, PC9s practising PFLs. There is more going on than operational training at Willy.

As far as lobbying the RAAF headshed, you are well and truly barking up the wrong tree. The military in general is struggling to hold onto airspace (see Pearce, Townsville etc), why would they wont to let CASA degrade their operational flexibility (read: their right to deny entry of civilian aircraft). The government controls who owns the airspace and how it is used. Try focusing your frustrations in that direction and see how you go.

Note. Dick i dont necessarily disagree with what your saying, but 1) think about the audience your trying to reach and 2) the message your preaching. 1) The people who are passionate are the RAAFies. hanging sh*te on them wont achieve anything:=. 2) is your problem just with Williamtown, or the greater ATC/CASA community. If so perhaps having only 1 example of a defunct ATC system isnt going to prove your point.

Comparing the US system to the Oz system is a bit misleading. Australia has a tiny fraction of the movements that the US system does, both civilian, RPT and militray. Thus suggesting that the comparitively light traffic experienced in Australia needs the same system as the US is absurd. Apart from your seriuos holding incident (which seems to be on the cautios side of safety) how else is Australias system prejudicing safety??? I am genuinely interested how safety is in jeopardy.

GD1

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

.. this crap about 15 times the traffic is just that .... CRAP!
.
... most of the J curve traffic is as dense as like type airspace in the US of A!!
.
It is not about effective use of airspace is it!? ... no ... it is about trying to justify a posthumous position lest an accident occur .... god forbid having to justify previous reductions in systems and safety :hmm:
.
Stop abusing the Mil .. are they the last bastion you have left to attack? .... following on from:-
.
. CAA, CASA, AOPA, ATSB, AsA, AIPA (QANTAS), AFAP (et al), DoTaRS, DoD, ATC's, Pilots (in general), Investigators, Regulators, ... anyone else I forgot to include? :ugh: :rolleyes:

[Flight Me]

And 25 years on we are still talking about this ****e: get a life.:hmm:

[Cap'n Arrr]

As OZBUSDRIVER said, you can always call willy up before you takeoff. I've gotten many PILS and assorted other clearances through willy and richmond by calling up beforehand, quite often its a case of either "No worries" or "Not right now, but if you get here around <time> it shouldn't be a problem" or "Sorry mate, no chance today"

Or plan B (a personal favourite) - transit on weekends or during standdown.:ok:

I understand where your concern lies Dick, and it's not necessarily wrong, however I've only been held once at NBB for more than 5-10 mins (due to a bunch of military aircraft flying through Gate something or other, still to this day no idea what it meant), and had no problems with other clearances. I've gone up the inland lane at 2500, I've been recleared from abeam Nelson Bay direct overhead WLM at 2000. I've done orbits overhead the Signa shipwreck, then been cleared over willy again.

I find that it helps to phone up beforehand (although I must admit, I rarely if ever did this for plain ol willy coastal), and to give a bit of advance notice over the radio. I can't remember exactly, but I think I used to call up coming past swansea, so they had a heads up. You'll almost certainly get held if you wait until Nobbys to call up, same as waiting until Long Reef to call for HBB orbits. Coming southbound, I found I would always get let in, but would be held closer to Williamtown if there was a potential conflict.

I don't mean any offence by this Dick, but how do you normally go about getting your clearance? I ask because I'm interested to know, not because I think you're doing anything wrong. I only judge 2 people, myself and my students (and even then I'm sometimes wrong!)

Arrr

[Spodman]

I have asked two important questions on two different posts.
Quote:
I will look forward to advice on why, on a CAVOK day, when the only traffic is a civilian Metro, a VFR aircraft can’t be given a clearance over the top of Williamtown airfield from the south to the north rather than being held at Nobbys. No reason, other than the rules saying they can't, and a culture saying that they needn't. You won't change either by bleating here, and just cause problems of your own if you are continuing your desperately unprofessional technique of harranging ATC on the radio. Quote:
I ask the experts here – why don’t we follow the proven FAA separation standards between IFR and VFR in Class C airspace?

(gripe, gripe, whinge, etc...) If I just start doing that I'm breaking the rules and will be spanked and theres another day TIBA for you. I have happily cleared VFR on intersecting tracks in Class C airspace and passed them the traffic information they were entitled to. A quavering question arose from one of them if they were separated and I told them no. Never heard any more about it. Make it like the US rules and I'll do it. Don't change the rules and I can do nothing.

[kimwestt]

:}:} I'm with you Dick! The only times that I seem to get held is at .... WLM.
Category MED2, and still have to hold while a couple of FA18's do their thing.
"Approach, confirm you copy we are MED2?" No reply, and a 14 minute hold orbiting at 3000', IMC, 5nm east of WLM. And not just the once!
All this despite the rule book indicating that MED tfc has priority over Mil tfc.
One can only hope.
And got boxed in on the tarmac the other week, grounds requirement was -- wait for it-- "stand by". Had to shut down and get a push back. It seems only one RAAF type doing Clearance Delivery, SMC, TWR, and APP.:ugh:

[Pera]

Med2 has the same priority as Scheduled traffic at a capital city aerodrome. WLM is not a capital city aerodrome and it's primary role is military. Of course MED1 is a different story.

[mjbow2]

willnotcomply says


What do others think?asks Dick
Who gives a BTW PP in PPRUNE stands for Professional Pilot. So WTF are you doing on this site?

As if the mob mentality bias against Dick Smith here cannot get any more obvious with statements like this.

Or perhaps I misunderstood your intent. Was your comment aimed at our Air Traffic Controllers (who are not professional pilots either) like Scurvy D Dog? Scurvy D Dog says
most of the J curve traffic is as dense as like type airspace in the US of A!!

willnotcomply did you want to challenge Scurvy D Dog on this ridiculous statement as we do not have 'like type airspace' and the density in Oz, even the Jcurve is nothing like the US? Or were you really aiming your nasty sentiments at Dick Smith alone?

The mob mentality is hard at work in the aviation industry in Australia.

Scurvy D Dog you claim that Dick Smith has 'abused' the Military and Pilots in general. I for one believe that Dick Smith is entirely on my side and supports my wishes to drag Australia's ridiculous airspace out of the 1950's. As a commercial airline pilot flying a redtail jet around our skies he has my full support.

MJ

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

.... outside the primaries ... regional CTA and CTAF is, is it not (when comparied to the examples Dick has used of like type in the US)?
.
You, like me, are entitled to your opinion! :ok:
.
Now I do not know (cause I do not work for the Mil), but I would assume they run C terminal for a reason, be it types, mix, performance ..... dunno ... they are just some of the reasons I would suspect!

[DirtyPierre]

As a commercial airline pilot flying a redtail jet around our skies he has my full support.
OMG - You're not one of the Holts are you?

I for one believe that Dick Smith is entirely on my side and supports my wishes to drag Australia's ridiculous airspace out of the 1950's.No, we don't have 50s airspace.

In the 50's my dad was the flying doctor at Wyndham and flew first in an Avro Anson then later in a Dove. Oz airspace was basically controlled or uncontrolled. It wasn't til the 90s we went to the alphabet soup we have today.

Our airspace is a product of a number of inquiries, projects and consultations with industry. If you were to examine any country in the world, you will find that the airspace of all nations is designed with the local conditions, resources and aviation community in mind.

If you don't like our airspace make a submission to the government. A whinge on here is just all so much ranting.

[Dick Smith]

ozbiggles,

You state:

“I'm not talking about the people high up who make the decisions. I'm talking about the coal face workers. ie the ATCs in the area and the broader defence community, who would be more inclined to do what they can if you offered a polite point of view with practical suggestion.”

ozbiggles, in my experience the coal face workers support moving to modern proven international procedures. The ones I have spoken to do anyway. They are as frustrated as I am with the total lack of decision making of those in the top positions.

When we only have to see the absolute stuff up with the procurement policy of the military to see how, for some reason, competent people do not reach the top. It is obviously the people without ability who can get on in a bureaucracy. If this was not so, why wouldn’t they have someone posting on this thread, to state why they haven’t made the changes they believe in.

[Dick Smith]

Gundog01,

The audience I am trying to reach is the general flying community and the Australian public at large. Once this issue is widely communicated and people know how they are being let down I believe that eventually competent people will be placed in these important positions and decision making will take place.

On Australia Day just after 9.00 am, a VFR 182 south bound in the lane was held 9 miles from Williamtown orbiting over a rough ocean at 500 feet so the 182 could be “separated” from a Baron making a visual approach to runway 30. If the 182 had had an engine failure on any of the outbound legs which took it one mile from the beach at 500 feet it is most likely all lives would have been lost in the subsequent ditching.

Are these incompetent leaders going to wait for such an accident before making the changes. Probably.

I will say again that the controllers at Williamtown are as good as any in the world. They are being totally let down by the hierarchy. There have now been Over 12,000 “views” by people on this thread who now know how incompetent these military leaders are. It is not as if they say change is not necessary. I have had meetings with many of these leaders who have consistently said to me that they support change and it will happen. It is just that they do not appear to have the ability or the self confidence to be responsible for bringing in the changes and therefore being held accountable for an actual decision.

I can assure everyone I will never give up whilst the lives of Australian families are being unnecessarily endangered. I hope the changes are made before additional inevitable deaths occur. We have already had one ditching at Port Stephens with a pilot following the “lane”, luckily that one did not result in loss of life.

[Dick Smith]

ozbigles,

Whether you like it or not the only reason that the Cessna 210 pilot flight planned the extra distance around to the west of Williamtown, was that he believed at the time that he would not get a clearance direct.

Surely, you can understand that no pilot would want to fly in mountainous areas at night, when a more direct route took the plane over the low coastal beaches. Even today, most pilots I know would never even attempt to get a clearance through Williamtown. I know many who battle the inland lane where most of the flying is done at levels, where you cannot do a safe forced landing – rather than to attempt to get a clearance.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there will be further fatalities, and this time I will make sure the people in the military in Canberra who have steadfastly refused to update to modern international practices are held accountable.

[Spaghetti Monster]

When we only have to see the absolute stuff up with the procurement policy of the military to see how, for some reason, competent people do not reach the top.

Dick, in that case why don't you stop mucking about here and just write to Angus Houston. Something along the lines of, 'Dear Angus, I'm not getting my own way as regards military airspace and it is therefore clear to me that you, having reached the top, are not competent.' That should do the trick.:rolleyes:

I know for a fact that you have at times been 'stitched up' unfairly, but has it occurred to you that your approach to getting your own way (while probably having contributed to your considerable successes in life) may not be helping you very much in the realm of aviation? Hurling generalised slurs about, as you have in this forum, does you no credit. Likewise, subjecting ATC to diatribes and harangues when you don't get your own way is not likely to garner you much respect anywhere in the professional aviation community. The fact that you have done so whilst serving as Chairman of CASA (I've heard it personally, and was pretty disappointed as someone who had previously admired and respected you) is even worse. Change of style required.

[Dick Smith]

Spaghetti Monster

This is about people’s lives.

Can’t you see this is about Australian families who are going to die because they are forced to hold in their aircraft at low levels over rough oceans. Surely something has to be done.

In relation to the military procurement statement - have you looked into the ‘purchase’ of the 1960s helicopters that I understand are now sitting in a hangar in Nowra. Who in their right mind would order a 30 year old second hand machine and then try to update it to modern standards, suggesting that such an order was ‘competent’.

Harangued air traffic control into getting my own way.

Spaghetti Monster, this has nothing to do with ‘getting my own way’. I can afford the unnecessary holding and as I have a twin engined machine, in the unlikely event of an engine failure, my family and I will most likely live. As recently as Australia Day the military rules resulted in the unnecessarily holding of a single engined aircraft over the ocean nine miles away from the airport. Surely something has to be done.


Rather than debating the issue i.e. why the rules aren’t updated so that the risky low level holding does not occur, you attack me in relation to something that I am supposed to have done as CASA Chairman. If what you are saying is true it would have been on the front page of every newspaper in Australia. I have spent 15 years on this safety problem in relation to military airspace – doing this behind the scenes. There is no doubt I have been lied to. I won’t say ‘fib’ this time, I will say ‘lie’ because that is the fact. You don’t seem to realise that this is a matter of life or death. To hold single engined aircraft and force them to go at low level over the ocean is nothing short of criminal.


Have you seen the Angel Flight ads? I am now going to prepare a set of similar announcements for television which show clearly the danger that these military people are forcing on civilian pilots and their families. Hopefully these television announcements exposing the outrageous ignorance of these people may result in change which will prevent unnecessary deaths. By the way the announcements will be absolutely accurate. They will show the recreation of a pilot being forced to hold over the ocean in good weather conditions risking his and his family’s life. Also the military will be able to get onto a Current Affair or the 7.30 Report and explain why they do this.

Spaghetti Monster, you make no comment at all about the small Cessna that ditched in the ocean at Port Stephens. Luckily the lone pilot survived. Isn’t that warning enough for you? By the way, what do you think a pilot is supposed to do when ordered to hold at 500 feet remaining over water up to one nautical mile from the coast. Do you actually expect a low-time pilot to call ATC and say ‘this is not acceptable due to the fact that my family and I may die’.

I am so angry about this, I am now obtaining legal advice on what action can be taken through the Federal Court to force these people in the Airforce to treat human life with its true value. Twenty five years of a totally unnecessary holding of single engined aircraft over rough oceans is clearly unacceptable because when the inevitable fatalities occur, watch them all run for cover and say it wasn’t their responsibility.

[LeadSled]

Folks,

How about everybody takes one step back, without the knee-jerk opposition to anything Dick Smith has to say, regardless of the merits of his well researched (and he does do his research -- which is more than can be said of some of the posts)) views, and look at just the facts of the case on Australia Day.

The ONLY traffic in the area, as described in a previous post, was the C182 and the IFR Baron, also a private flight, on a visual approach. The pilot of the Baron has confirmed the C182 situation. 10 nm+ separation laterally, no apparent use of vertical separation --- is that sensible separation under ANY circumstances --- let alone when it means pushing a single engine aircraft into orbits 9 nm from the beach at 500'.

Please--- without the attack dog approach to rejecting anybody who supports anything Dick Smith has to say --- could all of you who believe in the RAAF's unfettered right to shove GA traffic down into the weed, and force single engine aircraft to hold way offshore at 500', precluding any possibility of other than ditching in the event of an engine failure--- why is this OK ??

It's not OK, it is lunacy, it is not all that long ago that a C152 from a well known YSBK flying school ended up in the water off Willi. Thankfully the only occupant, a young student pilot, survived.

If that C182 had had a similar failure, how do you think the occupants might have fared??? There were children on board, indeed a family, don't you all think that the possibility of such fatalities dictates a re-think of the RAAF obstinacy in such matter. And it is obstinacy, there have been innumerable promises by the RAAF, over the forty plus years I have been involved, to drop the "We Won WWII, It All Belongs To Us" approach, but it hasn't happened yet.

The subject of the the problems brought about by the size of Richmond and Williamtown, RAAF "procedures", and the effect on ALL civil traffic, were on the agenda of the very first NSW RAPAC I ever attended (for the AFAP), that was a long, long time ago, little has changed for the better. For GA it hasn't changed at all.

Even surviving a prepared ditching is always touch and go, unprepared ??? There were no survivors from a ditching (or possibly it was CFIWater) late last year off southern Victoria.

In an aviation community that wants to use the word "safety" to justify any number of hare-brain'd micro-management "safety solutions" , why is this "procedure" "safe". In terms of Australia's national risk management standards, particularly AS/NZ 4360:2004, it is impossible to justify. No rational risk analysis could justify it.

Any reasonable person doesn't need to be an "aviation professional" to know it is completely unjustified ---- and most certainly not safe.

Canada, USA, UK and most European countries take a far more enlightened approach to cooperation between military and civilian aviation at all levels, and certainly don't impose anything like what happens at Willi. I know, from personal experience, in both GA and much larger aircraft. Even more so in the UK than the US, it is simplicity itself, why is it such a long running sore in Australia??

Why isn't the RAAF paying proper and due regard to the safety of ALL operations in its vast airspace. Will it have to be the all to common Australian approach --- changes are finally made as a result of recommendations by a Coroner --- and a Commission of Inquiry, looking at why such an unsafe procedure, as forecast many time --- finally cost lives.

The High Court of Australia, in 1982, Gibbs, CJ, defined duty of care. Is the RAAF in breach of its duty of care ???

Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

So who declared the various volumes of Restricted airspace that the RAAF controls at Williamtown?

A name please, not speculation.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Taking into consideration that the 182 was asked to hold. In three minutes the aircraft would be within radar separation minima of 1000ft and 3nm. The radar data must have shown the Baron and the 182 were going to be in conflict of the minima. I guess Dick would reckon that the Baron could have been asked to maintain 1500ft till clear of the coast which puts him less than 4nm from the threshold at 1500ft doable but not pretty. So ATC has a choice, 182 doing circle work or ask the Baron to remain 1500ft till over the beach.

OK, looking at the 182 driver, do you think it prudent to attempt an orbit at 500ft out over a rough ocean at over 140kts. Considering a rate one would put you some 1.5nm out to sea. Slow to 80kts with 20flap and that distance is 800m, creep in a little over the beach before turning out and the distance is even less. The time taken to slow and turn wouldn't raise the heckles of the ATC. I am sure there was a good 6nm of airspace to slow and turn before it would be critical. I am also sure ATC if they asked would agree with such a request.

Keeping in mind, I am sure the act of one rate one turn to take up 2 minutes would have the two aircraft clear and the 182 could continue.

Was the 182 asked to do more than one orbit?

If I was in the 182, I would certainly start to slow up and chuck some flap out to keep in close. I know because I have already been faced with an exact same scenario. The ATC is after time to separate, help him do it.

[CaptainMidnight]

So who declared the various volumes of Restricted airspace that the RAAF controls at Williamtown?Can't give you a name, but the process as I understand it is that since 1 July 2007 a "delegate" in CASAs Office of airspace regulation signs off an instrument covering all airspace published in the designated airspace handbook for a particular publication date. That happens for every DAH release.I'm not sure that running ads indicating to the general public that GA aircraft can't be operated near water because it could have an engine failure at any time (that's the way many would see it) is really going to help. You may just convince Joe Public not to go flying in GA aircraft! That won't help business.Correct - to highlight the chance one may fall out of the sky (whether near water or not), who will want GA aircraft overflying their house?

Fuel for those living near airports used by GA trying to close them: "Dick Smith said ......."

The subtlty of orbiting vs. flying from A to B will be lost on Mr & Mrs Public.

You might want to run your proposal past AOPA before proceeding, Dick.

[Howabout]

Dick,

I seem to remember a pronouncement you made after the reversal of E over D - please correct me if I am wrong. From memory, you announced publicly that you would be advising your family not to fly because of the accident risk associated with C over D (reversal of Stage 2b???). Your sentiments must have seemed quite frightening to the general public given your profile. I'd suggest that such a pronouncement rings a little hollow, since you still fly (as I understand it) into what used to be known as secondary control zones, with C over D, despite your aforementioned warnings.

So, while I defend your right to raise what you regard to be a sub-standard level of service in Williamtown airspace, I respectfully suggest that your previous assertions may have damaged your argument. 'Shock value' is all well and good, but I think that we now have a situation where previously potential allies may regard you as the 'boy who cried wolf'.

[Creampuff]

Can't give you a name, but the process as I understand it is that since 1 July 2007 a "delegate" in CASAs Office of airspace regulation signs off an instrument covering all airspace published in the designated airspace handbook for a particular publication date. That happens for every DAH release.Thanks CM. Now we’re on the scent.

Dick: Wouldn’t it be a little embarrassing if the people who have declared the Williamtown Restricted areas over the last 25 years weren’t people in uniform? Wouldn’t it be smarter to argue with the organ grinder who makes the decisions, rather than the monkeys who have to deal with the consequences of the decisions, once you’ve found out who the organ grinder is?

[Spaghetti Monster]

Spaghetti Monster, you make no comment at all about the small Cessna that ditched in the ocean at Port Stephens.


Dick

I make no comment about it because I'm not actually opposing your stance on Williamtown airspace. I don't claim sufficiently detailed knowledge on the issue to take a position either way.

What I was opposing is your inaccurate and offensive slurs, partly because they don't do your arguments any favours, and partly because they're inaccurate and offensive.

You implied directly that anyone who reaches the top of the military is not competent. To support this you use the example of procurement policy. Firstly, many procurement programs are actually perfectly successful. Secondly, are you aware that some procurement decisions (eg F-111G, F-18F, F-35) are made with little or no uniformed input?

You then backed up your assertion with the example of the Seasprite. Quite a cockup - but believe it or not, there are many senior military officer in the last 25 years who had nothing to do with it. It's a bit like taking the example of Rodney Adler and Ray Williams, and claiming that all high-flying businessmen are incompetent and corrupt. (We couldn't have that, could we?:)) I'm left wondering why an intelligent man would bother making an assertion with so little sound logic to back it up.

Likewise, your original comments in post #128 about the alleged lack of effort in finding the remains from the C210 accident. Another inaccurate and offensive slur - as evidenced by your susequent editing of the post.

As for If what you are saying is true it would have been on the front page of every newspaper in Australia - perhaps you are overestimating your newsworthiness just a bit? It wasn't front page stuff anyway - maybe about page 7 or 8. Still a bit surprising at the time.

Anyway, enough. I'm not a knee-jerk Dick-basher (now there's a mental image for you!:}), nor do I think everything you do or say is wrong. Just some of it.

[Green on, Go!]

The ONLY traffic in the area, as described in a previous post, was the C182 and the IFR Baron, also a private flight, on a visual approach. The pilot of the Baron has confirmed the C182 situation. 10 nm+ separation laterally, no apparent use of vertical separation --- is that sensible separation under ANY circumstances --- let alone when it means pushing a single engine aircraft into orbits 9 nm from the beach at 500'.

Lead, the C182 was held at Nobby's Head (NBB) which is a prominent topographical feature about 9NM due south of Willy and very close to Newcastle city, not 9NM offshore. This is IAW the procedure specified in ERSA. The controllers use NBB because it is easily identifiable to GA pilots of all experience levels. Years ago the Sygna wreck was also used for holding as it was also quite prominent, however, I believe the wreck has now deteriorated to the point that it is not that recognisable and if a pilot misses it then separation with final/upwind is lost quite quickly. There are no other prominent features up Stockton Beach that are useful for holding until you get closer to Port Stephens.
Letting a pilot stooge on up the beach with a view to sorting out the separation later is widely considered a loss of tactical separation assurance as you have a deteriorating separation situation without provision for radio failure, radar failure etc.
In the past IFR arrivals to RWY30 were given a requirement to conduct the VSA 1NM west of the coast to provide appropriate lateral separation and allow the coastal traffic to continue. Why that method was not suitable or used in this case, I cannot say. The reasons may be many.

If the instruction to the C182 required the PIC to break any rule or regulation, eg proceeding further than engine out glide from the beach when not appropriately equipped with life jackets etc, then the PIC is required to reject the clearance and demand something more suitable.

[Pera]

On Australia Day just after 9.00 am, a VFR 182 south bound in the lane was held 9 miles from Williamtown orbiting over a rough ocean at 500 feet so the 182 could be “separated” from a Baron making a visual approach to runway 30. If the 182 had had an engine failure on any of the outbound legs which took it one mile from the beach at 500 feet it is most likely all lives would have been lost in the subsequent ditching.

ATC separating aircraft. Unbelievable!

[Dick Smith]

Pass-A-Frozo, you state:

I'm not sure that running ads indicating to the general public that GA aircraft can't be operated near water because it could have an engine failure at any time (that's the way many would see it) is really going to help. In fact, from my experience I have found the general public are not stupid. They know the implications of a single engine aircraft and they know the absolute irresponsibility of forcing such an aircraft over the ocean at low levels when there are alternatives. The television announcement will make this absolutely clear.

Ozbusdriver, it is amazing that you come up with the most extraordinary claims of how the situation can be justified but you don’t come up with any support for the fact that if the regulations were updated to follow other leading aviation countries, there would be no need for the aircraft to be forced to hold low over a rough ocean in the first place.

I have mentioned before that the “standard” used in North America is 500 feet vertically, or target resolution. If this “standard” was used in Australia there would be no need for the unnecessary and risky holding.

Howabout, I think you will find my announcements about the risk of flying in airspace were in relation to places like Proserpine – with high mountains in the CTAF and no use of the available radar – and also Avalon airport – with over 1 million passenger movements and no air traffic control or even a UNICOM.

Creampuff, thanks for your advice, I’ll look into it. The problem is that it won’t matter what enormous stuff-ups have been made in the past in relation to the declaration of airspace, all that will happen if I take action on this is that the problems will be rectified (within a couple of hours and with the stroke of a pen) and the real changes I want will never come in. By real changes, I mean modern procedures that are proven internationally that give very high levels of safety without forcing undue risk onto pilots and without resulting in unnecessary costs.

Spaghetti Monster, I’ll take your point regarding the fact that there are undoubtedly some competent people who have reached the top of the military. Why then don’t they bring in some modern procedures that will reduce unnecessary risk? If they don’t want to do that, why don’t they say why?

I believe that eventually these modern procedures will come in. Just as many other changes have been resisted over the last 2 decades, eventually after a lot of pressure the changes are made, safety is improved and costs are reduced.

I assure everyone that I have done everything I can behind the scenes to encourage the military decision makers to move forward to modern safe procedures as proven internationally. The ones I have spoken to have agreed that this is a necessity, and even told me that they support change and it is going to happen. When the years go by and nothing happens, you wonder what is going on. Maybe these people need a bit of assistance from outside.

Green on, Go!, in this case the C182 was not held at Nobbys, it was southbound (as I originally stated) and it was told to hold when 9 nautical miles to the north east of Williamtown, flying south in the light aircraft lane over water.

Pera, I love your comment:

ATC separating aircraft. Unbelievable! Can you remember the days when in Sydney, VFR helicopters were separated by ATC from other VFR helicopters? In the case of helicopters flying to and from the Darling Harbour helipad, this was done procedurally as if they were IFR – i.e. one helicopter would sit on the helipad with rotors running for up to 15 minutes, whilst another helicopter was inbound. This was eventually changed (after a lot of pressure) to simply giving a traffic information service. It worked safely from then on, and meant that the helicopters passed each other quite often with many miles separation rather than passing each other on the helipad as one hovered close to the other. Safety was undoubtedly improved.

Isn’t it amazing that there is simply no one in the military game to put their name to a view on this issue? These are people who are going to defend us in the case of war. Wouldn’t you think they would have the guts to come on this website or issue a public statement in relation to why they force VFR aircraft to fly at low levels over the ocean when an engine failure would most likely result in all on board losing their lives?

As I’ve said before, it is all a complete sham because when they go home on the weekend it is a complete free for all – without even a UNICOM giving traffic information.

Remember, I’m not talking about the military separating VFR aircraft from F/A-18s, I’m talking about the so-called “separation” of a VFR aircraft from a Beech Baron on a visual approach.

[Dick Smith]

Spaghetti Monster, I omitted to answer two of your other points. First of all, in relation to post #128, my statement was factual:

I will ask a question. If it had been the Chief of the Air Force who had gone missing over Barrington Tops, do you think money would have been spent on finding the crash site and his body? Too right - just as a large amount of money was correctly spent in Fiji recovering the Black Hawk helicopter which crashed off the back of HMAS Kanimbla. The editing on that post was in relation to the link to the letter and had nothing to do with the statement you are referring to.

I spoke on a number of occasions to the man referred to who was involved in the search until he died. He was absolutely outraged at the lack of interest from all parts of Government (including the military) in relation to finding and recovering the 5 bodies for their loved ones.

However the main point in relation to that post and that issue is something you haven’t touched on. That is, as there is clearly a perception that pilots have to flight plan around the Williamtown airspace in bad weather, and this clearly resulted in 5 people losing their lives. Why hasn’t someone in the military issued a simple statement explaining to pilots that in the case of bad weather, the military will do everything they can to expedite a clearance through the airspace where an aircraft can remain at low level, out of icing? As far as I know, there has never been such a statement. To this day, pilots still have a perception that they have to flight plan around the airspace – and that is what they are doing.

And by the way, the reason there would be no reporting (whether on the front page or on page 7 or 8) of this so-called incident when I was CASA Chairman is that what you are talking about never occurred. Why don’t you ask your informant for an approximate time and place, and what the subject was actually about? I believe you will then find you have been fed a furphy.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick, it is not extraordinary. It's called AIRMANSHIP. Part of that means learn the system and flow with it. Entrepreneurs need not apply. Finding a niche and exploiting it works for business, not safe aviating.

[Pera]

Wouldn’t you think they would have the guts to come on this website or issue a public statement in relation to why they force VFR aircraft to fly at low levels over the ocean when an engine failure would most likely result in all on board losing their lives?

DS,

You should take up your case with RAPAC and GA associations who can lobby for legislative change. What possible case could the airforce have for being involved in civilian aircraft separation standards? Your own posts indicate that the airforce have been in favour of airspace reform and NAS, so I assume they are not stopping it.

in this case the C182 was not held at Nobbys, it was southbound (as I originally stated) and it was told to hold when 9 nautical miles to the north east of Williamtown, flying south in the light aircraft lane over water.

It doesn't matter where it was held. It was separated with the Beech. How the delay is implemented doesn't matter. If IFR GA aircraft do not require separating from VFR when they are on a visual approach, they could be educated to cancel IFR in order to save their mates a few minutes. That can be implemented without legislation. Did the beech pilot want to be separated from an aircraft flying underneath his approach path?

Trying to give the airforce a bloody nose because they provide ATC at WLM will be ineffective. Surely they will have to implement whatever standards for civilian aircraft that they are required to by legislation.

When fighters are not operating at WLM, I don't see why transits have to use the vfr lanes. I suppose that the airspace is set up for worst case scenario (ie busy with fighters) but having an aircraft fly through final isn't too bright if it's avoidable.

P

[Gundog01]

My sentiments exactly Pera. Good call about airmanship.

The military operates within the legal requirements of CASA legislation pertaining to separation standards. We do not set our own separation standards. Lobby the government, lobby CASA but dont blame the Military (ATCs and the 'Bosses' alike) for implementing the Australian standard. They can not control what happens with legislation, influence maybe, but why would they when the military is not adversely affected. That might sound a bit arrogant, but really, why lobby to change something that in their eye's (for this particular situation at Willy) isn't broken?

These are people who are going to defend us in the case of war.

Using that line is about the lamest, weakest most pathetic comment i have read on this sight. I hardly see what being good at their job (warfighting) has to do with legislating a civilian controlled industry.

Wouldn’t you think they would have the guts to come on this website or issue a public statement in relation to why they force VFR aircraft to fly at low levels over the ocean when an engine failure would most likely result in all on board losing their lives?

The militarys' job is not to comment on matters such as this. That is what the Transport Minister and CASA CEO are for. Remember the argument Dick, it is about government legislation not military procedures.

[CaptainMidnight]

They know the implications of a single engine aircraft What they know is that they don't want GA aircraft flying over their house, and someone saying that if an aircraft has an engine failure when holding offshore and that's unsafe for the occupants, the natural reaction is going to be: better he has that engine failure out there than over a built up area.

I've had direct experience of the general public's perception of GA aircraft ops, so I know what I'm talking about.

As I said, run your proposal past AOPA before you do untold damage to GA

And I'm not sure I got an answer to my question: what exactly did you say to WLM ATC on the air recently?

[Dick Smith]

Ozbusdriver, you state:

Dick, it is not extraordinary. It's called AIRMANSHIP. Part of that means learn the system and flow with it. From that I understand you mean “stick with the status quo” – i.e. if in 1930 someone decided that there should be a 1,000 foot vertical separation between IFR and VFR, that separation must go on forever. That is, “learn the system and flow with it” rather than look at other modern aviation countries which have changed to a 500 foot separation standard with no reported safety implications.

I have a feeling – as sad as it is – that we are going to have to wait for more needless fatalities at Williamtown before the changes are made. In my publication Unsafe Skies I quoted a senior Government bureaucrat who said that the changes would not be made until there was a major airline accident. He said that was the history of aviation.

Although most who post on this site are opposed to any change and want the status quo, I’m truly hoping there are some new “Young Turks” coming along who will push for Australia to move to the most efficient and modern regulations in the world.

By the way, CaptainMidnight, I’ve spoken to Col Rodgers, the President of AOPA, and he totally supports television announcements in relation to Williamtown and single engine aircraft as I have discussed on this thread.

[Dick Smith]

Gundog01, you state:

The military operates within the legal requirements of CASA legislation pertaining to separation standards. Remember the argument Dick, it is about government legislation not military procedures. This is only partially true. For example, CASA has quite specific dimensions for Class C airspace promulgated. Nowhere does it show Class C going to 24 miles at ground level. The military has simply decided to take no notice of the CASA “standards” in this case.

Gundog01, if you are going to be good at your job (i.e. war fighting) you need to have people who are strong at leadership, have lateral thinking minds, and copy the best practices from anywhere in the world. They also need to be forceful enough to do what they say they are going to do – not just lamely copy some rule from 50 years ago from a pathetic Government bureaucracy.

It is the military’s job to comment when their actions are causing unnecessary risk. Why couldn’t they say that they are concerned about the unnecessary risk created for Australian families, and they are working with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to update the regulations so the risk can be reduced?

The reason the military does nothing is your statement:

That might sound a bit arrogant, but really, why lobby to change something that in their eyes (for this particular situation at Willy) isn't broken? What they are saying is that it is not military lives that are at risk when they are holding a single engine plane with a young family out over the ocean, so why should they care at all?

It is interesting that when I, and other civilians, see a military person being injured or killed overseas, we are incredibly concerned – and many of us do everything we can to assist the families. What a pity it doesn’t work both ways.

In fact it does work both ways. Many of the military people I know are concerned about the unnecessary risk that is being created at Williamtown and other places, but believe they simply can’t do anything about it.

CaptainMidnight, I can’t remember what I actually said to Williamtown ATC, however it certainly wasn’t that I would refuse the instruction they had given me (i.e. to hold) as has been recommended by others on this site.

[No Further Requirements]

This is only partially true. For example, CASA has quite specific dimensions for Class C airspace promulgated. Nowhere does it show Class C going to 24 miles at ground level. The military has simply decided to take no notice of the CASA “standards” in this case.


That's true Dick, however there are not too many class C aerodromes that have live firing and straffing ranges around them. Nor are there too many that have low flying high speed jet recoveries. I suspect, if you delved deeper, there would be a good reason why the CTR is so large.

Do you not think it is safer to declare a large CTR that encompasses a number of dangerous areas (bombs, rockets etc) rather than promulgate, activate and de-activate small areas which could be easily be missed on NOTAMS resulting in needless deaths? I think the RAAF is doing GA a favour by having such an area.

And I also agree that it is the PIC's responsibility to ensure the safety of their aircraft. If the instruction given to them by ATC puts their flight into danger, they should speak up. I would expect a VFR aircraft on a vector to advise me if they were going to enter cloud. Same way if you are told to hold over water and were worried then you should speak up. If you are confident enough to fly a plane you are confident enough to seek a better solution with ATC.

Cheers,

NFR.

[Dick Smith]

No Further Requirements, I can assure you that there are many places around the world where there are live firing and strafing ranges in the vicinity of airports like Williamtown. Not at any place that I have ever seen do they encompass the whole area in Class C airspace.

Also, the point I’m getting at is that this airspace is activated to 24 miles for civilian traffic. That is, ATC will come in and activate the airspace because there is a Saab or a Navajo approaching.

Everything you say is about keeping the status quo and justifying what has been done in the past.

Whereas a low time pilot would be trained to advise ATC if being vectored into cloud, it would take quite a gutsy low time pilot to refuse an ATC instruction to hold and orbit.

Unfortunately you are missing out on the whole point I am making. That is, there is simply no need under the circumstances shown to hold a VFR aircraft. They can actually transit through the airspace very safely using modern ICAO procedures. For example, if the airspace was Class D, a traffic information service would suffice.

We go from everything (i.e. Class C) to absolutely nothing (i.e. a “black hole” CTAF) purely depending on when the military decides to man the tower – not when the risks are highest for civilian traffic.

I can assure you that this is all about a lack of ability of the people in the military to introduce any change – even if it is change that they want.

[scran]

Long time since I worked at Willy - but looking ta the map now - the Control Zone is actually 12nm. :eek:


The airspace outside that (to 25nm - see below) is part of the restricted airspace associated with the Willy training areas. :rolleyes:

I don't know what airspace Willy activates on weekends to process aircraft, but I can't imagine its all of the CTR (SFC-5000), R578A (5000-FL125) and R578B (SFC-FL125) is it?

[Pera]

i.e. if in 1930 someone decided that there should be a 1,000 foot vertical separation between IFR and VFR, that separation must go on forever. That is, “learn the system and flow with it” rather than look at other modern aviation countries which have changed to a 500 foot separation standard with no reported safety implications.

The separation standard between an IFR beech baron and a VFR C182 is 500ft.

Dick, How can you advocate changing separation standards if you don't know them. Serious question!

It is the military’s job to comment when their actions are causing unnecessary risk. :ugh::ugh:

[Dick Smith]

Pera, do everything you can to keep the status quo. My statement in relation to the 1,000 foot vertical separation standard was clearly not referring to the standard where we are the same as the USA. It was referring to situations where we are different.

You left out the fact that horizontally, the US requires target resolution, whereas in Australia we do not accept this – even when the radar signal is coming from one radar head.

I find it fascinating that every post is trying to justify the status quo rather than looking at how we could do it better.

Remember that this is about human life. If the changes are not made I have no doubt that people will be lost (probably a young family) after their aircraft ditches in a rough ocean after being needlessly held by a military air traffic controller.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

You are so wrong, Dick. The system includes every change in airspace over the last ten years. Flow with it means you are familiar and professional with the operations of flying in controlled airspace. No matter what rules you change!

Radar separation standard is 3nm and 1000ft. The choice of ATC is to either vector the Baron on approach or hold the 182 for less than two minutes to achieve that separation. It is easier for the 182 to hold. Now, how far did that 182 go out over the ocean, Dick? How long was the 182 held for?

Some advice, Mr Smith. You are burning your bridges with your so called supporters. Use your status to do something worthwhile. Leave the boys and girls at WLY alone. Learn the system and flow with it, stop acting like an ass!

Want to do something useful? ASIC out to five years like the truckies MSIC. Class 1 instructors to be able to take students without having to procure an AOC. CIR checked along with AFR and remain in force until cancelled (Same as the US, buddy!) The tower at EN. Get some of that GST taken out of a stateless aviation industry to be spent back in the industry it is ripped out of. We have got a new Transport minister who could be the worst thing to happen to aviation since Charlie Jones' day, How about being nice for a change and use some actual facts. Put your money into getting out and promoting GA as a good way to spend your recreational dollar and go see Australia rather than trying to portray it as a single engine disaster just waiting to happen over a suburb near you. Look around you, Dick. The last runway built in NSW was Temora three years ago and that was the first one in twenty years. Evans Head aerodrome is being set for the developers chopping block yet it serves an essential service. Soon , there will be no GA friendly aerodromes within the SY basin. Infrastucture is what is stuck in the past!

[ozbiggles]

In regards to your example, the chances of an engine failure in that 2 minutes of holding I think it FAR FAR FAR more likely that an accident may happen at a GAAP airport now that no longer has any airport firefighting service and that same family will die trapped in an aircraft before specialist help arrives.
Can't remember who made that affordable safety decision to save a couple of cents a litre in AVGAS charges....can anyone else?
If there was only one aircraft causing the 182 to hold at WLM, I'm sure they would have got an airways clearance. If they had planned or asked with enough time to organise it that is.
Are you also advocating the closure of all coastal routes because of the risk they pose? The end of the 500' beach run I guess.

[CaptainMidnight]

I’ve spoken to Col Rodgers, the President of AOPA, and he totally supports television announcements in relation to Williamtown and single engine aircraft Well, that surprises me, and it indicates not thinking through the possible consequences.

I would have thought that only positive stories and news about GA would be supported, not one that highlights they can have engine failures at any time. The fact you are trying to make of that engine failure happening out to sea, is a fine point that will be lost with the public perception that light aircraft are hazardous.

The Mr & Mrs Public I've dealt with would no doubt hold the view that not only should light aircraft not be allowed near military bases, they shouldn't be allowed over built up areas i.e. they would support flying coastal in case of accidents.

But you know better - what can we tell you.

[Gundog01]

It is the military’s job to comment when their actions are causing unnecessary risk. Why couldn’t they say that they are concerned about the unnecessary risk created for Australian families, and they are working with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to update the regulations so the risk can be reduced?


Perhaps you missed the point on that one Dick. What i was trying to suggest is that maybe the Military dosent see the 'risk' (however tiny) that you are trying to push. 2-3 minutes over water in a single isn't great but your damn unlucky if the donk goes in that time.

If the changes are not made I have no doubt that people will be lost (probably a young family) after their aircraft ditches in a rough ocean after being needlessly held by a military air traffic controller.

Again with the military bashing Dick. The controller was simply following standard procedures. A civilian ATC would have to follow the same separation standards, so why single out the fact that, in this case, they are military. If you are arguing for a total system overhaul you need to think bigger than the circumstances at one particular aerodrome.

Also, if dad or mum is flying the family around in a lightie i would hope they would be confident and assertive enough to mention to ATC when a potentially dangerous situation occurs. Airnmanship anyone......

GD01

[Dick Smith]

Ozbusdriver, about 25 years ago I used to orbit for up to 10 minutes at Hornsby, just outside the Sydney control zone, so I could be separated from the Channel 10 helicopter which was departing the zone from Ryde.

After a lot of work, I and others managed to change that “regulation”, which required ATC to separate VFR from VFR (as if they were IFR) to modern procedures of simply giving traffic information. That has saved the industry a small fortune since then. It has relieved the unnecessary workload on controllers and undoubtedly improved safety.

Let’s now move forward to our 3 nautical mile and 1,000 foot “standard” that the controllers are using at Williamtown. As I have pointed out endlessly, the “standard” in other leading countries such as the USA is 500 feet and target resolution. This simply means that the controller can allow the aircraft to get closer together so they can sight each other and keep apart – all very sensible, and it results in no holding under similar circumstances.

One day we will change to these modern rules, but I’m amazed at how difficult it is to make these moves. Who could possibly be against them? Certainly not the air traffic controllers, who are being forced to hold aircraft needlessly over the ocean, and know that their bosses will all run for cover and blame them when people die. It certainly can’t be the pilots of VFR aircraft who don’t want to waste the time holding. They are quite often using aviation so they can get to a place promptly.

Why don’t you say for an instant that we (whether it be CASA, Airservices or the Defence department) should look in Australia to moving to these modern separation standards? Just as we could change the rule that required VFR to be separated from VFR in primary control zones, surely we can change the rule in Class C to reflect what is used all around the world.

All the other points you bring up are points I’m interested in. I have an ongoing campaign to remove very unnecessary cost. In the last few days I wrote to Grant Mazowita, Manager Regulatory Development Management Branch at CASA, in relation to having our command instrument rating follow the US system – which does not require a 12 monthly renewal.

Ozbiggles, yes, I was involved in the removal of rescue and fire fighting at secondary airports. It is totally consistent with my campaign at Williamtown. It is about harmonisation with proven safe practices. GA airports of a similar size in all other modern aviation countries (other than the UK) did not have the cost of an airport fire fighting service as it was a misallocation of resources. It didn’t spend the safety dollar effectively – just as holding an aircraft 9 miles away does not.

Why won’t any of you, even for a second, consider that we should look at moving to modern separation procedures which undoubtedly will reduce waste and risk?

Gundog01, I see your point, but why would military controllers want to use procedures that were designed in the 1950s – or perhaps the 1930s? Also, I’m sure they understand that if one of these aircraft that is being held to their archaic procedures comes down in the water and everyone drowns, all the bosses will run for cover and the controller will undoubtedly be held responsible, and be told that there was some other procedure that he or she should have used. Wait for it to happen and see if I’m right. I bet I am.

[Tim Blatch]

By the way, CaptainMidnight, I’ve spoken to Col Rodgers, the President of AOPA, and he totally supports television announcements in relation to Williamtown and single engine aircraft as I have discussed on this thread.

Col has asked me to post a clarification. In his conversation with Dick, Col agreed that orbiting at 500' one mile out to sea was an undesirable situation. He did not discuss any television advertising with Dick, and Col believes that an advertising campaign such as that described in this forum would not be in the best interest of General Aviation.

Tim Blatch
AOPA CEO

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick, can we just look at this realisticly. The threshold of WLM 30 is 3.04nm from the first dune on the beach. The FAF for 30 NDB is 6nm from the aid. A 5 degree approach to the 30 threshold is 1540ft at the dune. A 3 degree approach is 930ft. A visual approach could be anywhere within these two heights at this point. A VFR lighty coming down the beach @500ft is in conflict with the 1000ft separation as a minimum and your 500ft separation in the worst case. Radar, by way of vector lines, can see where these aircraft will be in 3 minutes time given maintaining speed and course.

Your idea of a VFR coastal lane at WLM will not work. SY and Victor 1 are over at least 6nm separation. If this was a CTAF you would still be cursing ATC for not doing their job. ATC are there, they do their job that would ensure separation and you curse them. If the 182 driver didn't like it He has the OBLIGATION of telling ATC he will not accept the directions.

From what I understand, the US system still protects published approaches with a splayed airspace out to 5nm. If that was here the WLM zone would still be 2nm out to sea. Dick, it is far easier to work with WLM ATC .

When MCY got busier and before it became a CTZ. We had to maintain 500ft coastal and fly out around Mudjimba to avoid MCY and that was all OK back then. No biggy then and that Island was more than a mile off the coast.

[CaptainMidnight]

I thought there was more to it. Thank you for the clarification, good to see. Why don’t you say for an instant that we (whether it be CASA, Airservices or the Defence department) should look in Australia to moving to these modern separation standards? What is the point of harranging ATCs civil or military here? They work within the rules.

If you've got a beef with the standards, write to CASA.

Is the reason you post here because such organisations and others in the industry won't engage you or don't share your views?

[bentleg]

What is the point of harranging ATCs civil or military here? They work within the rules.

If you've got a beef with the standards, write to CASA.

I agree. Beefing here won't change anything.

[Howabout]

Dick,

We now have a bit of a dilemma. You claim that Col Rodgers supported your push for TV adverts with the assertion that:

By the way, CaptainMidnight, I’ve spoken to Col Rodgers, the President of AOPA, and he totally supports television announcements in relation to Williamtown and single engine aircraft as I have discussed on this thread.

We now have Tim Blatch telling us that:

Col has asked me to post a clarification. In his conversation with Dick, Col agreed that orbiting at 500' one mile out to sea was an undesirable situation. He did not discuss any television advertising with Dick, and Col believes that an advertising campaign such as that described in this forum would not be in the best interest of General Aviation.

There's a mis-match here on who said what to whom - can we please have some clarification Dick.

[Lagrange Mechanic]

He's too busy attacking others on the other thread to respond :rolleyes: apparently

[Dick Smith]

No Just waiting for a call back from Col.
Ozbusdriver how does it all work when CTAF procedures apply? I can assure you that aircraft do not hold at Nobbies. They obtain traffic info on each other and can somehow operate without orbiting over the ocean at low levels.
We should get some of the Bankstown controllers at WLM to show how lots of aircraft can be moved safely with minimum delays

[dircmt]

So on one side of the argument, WLM is an unsafe CTAF because of the GA that flys around there on weekends and should be fully controlled......on the other hand when GA are separated IAW the rules and regulations set by CASA that all Air Traffic Controllers are required to compy with it is over controlled. Make up your mind.

As numerous other people have pointed out in this thread so far, this is not something that you should be targeting at Defence and you certainly should not be targeting the young men and women of this country who perform their jobs with the utmost professionalism and ceaseless enthusiasm. Lets not forget that they are also willing to go and serve in countries where there lives are at risk.........they do not deserve to be subjected to one man's unhappiness with the current rules and procedures that apply in this country. I would far rather see them do their job and comply with the rules then disregard them and perhaps cause an accident.

How about becoming a little bit professional yourself and tackle this so called "risk" in a professional manner and take your so called concerns formally to CASA and let them decide if indeed there is a safety issue, I suspect not!

[scran]

Probalby half the Bankstown Controllers are ex Military anyway - I certainly knew a few ex-mil who went there.


Dick - find a hole and crawl in

[willnotcomply]

Most of these guys are flying bug smashers, say no more. Save your breath.

[Fragnasty]

Hey Dick - **** happens.

Get over it.

[Dick Smith]

dircmt, I am not "targeting" the young people in the military- I am totally supportive and on their side. I am however targeting those in the decision making positions in Canberra who make no decisions on this issue.
I have taken my concerns to CASA and I am told that the military bosses refuse to allow any change-no doubt because they cannot see any advantage for them.
For safety reasons I believe we should have ATC at Williamtown and not just a CTAF-but why can't we have modern classD airspace and procedures so that aircraft are not forced to hold at low level over the ocean!

[bentleg]

I am told that the military bosses refuse to allow any change-no doubt because they cannot see any advantage for them


So you need to take it to the military bosses...........whingeing on here won't make them change.

[Dick Smith]

bentleg, as I have already said,I have spent over a decade communicating with these military people in Canberra. Despite promises of change nothing happens.
I am not actually whingeing- I am communicating to thousands of people just what the real situation is.
Do you think I would get more success in communicating through Newcastle TV just how Aussie families are forced to fly low over the ocean because the military have never modernised their procedures?
Already the "outing" through this thread is having an effect as I understand some recent clearances through the lane have been at 1000' - a great safety improvement that has been rejected in the past.
Now all we need is a procedure for VFR aircraft to transit across the top of the field as they do at LAX and we,ll really be improving safety.
I thank everyone for the support from behind the scenes.

[Gundog01]

Do you think I would get more success in communicating through Newcastle TV just how Aussie families are forced to fly low over the ocean because the military have never modernised their procedures?


Dick

For the last time stop the military bashing. It is not the military's procdures. It is CASA legislation that dictates separation standards. UNDERSTAND.

I've been willing to give you the benefit of the doubt about your motives. It is becoming clear that along with your campaign to change the system, there is a strong under current of anti-military sentiment. DITCH IT.

DG01

[CaptainMidnight]

Do you think I would get more success in communicating through Newcastle TV just how Aussie families are forced to fly low over the ocean because the military have never modernised their procedures?
Nope.

Their view would be that anything that stops unsafe light aircraft from flying over houses is a good thing. AOPA are right to distance themselves from this.

And Defence would simply respond to such ads. saying that they accommodate civil traffic when possible, but the base is after all conducting activity related to the defence of the nation and that work and activity naturally takes priority.

And Mr & Mrs Public will think fair enough, why should the military give way to light aircraft, and those things don't want to get held up then don't fly near the bases.

But we can't tell you that. You know better.

[Naked_recommiting]

Dick,

I have stood back, and largely agreed with your points etc - and yes there are 'dick-bashers' (he he) who have attempted to drag your arguement off track... don't be found guilty of doing the same.

As you are aware, Williamtown is not a 'joint users' airfield - and like most jobs in our RAAF, ATC staff are in short supply. If you were to conduct a little more research, you would find that the WLM tower is manned outside of military flying hours for the benfit of RPT and other heavy scheduled civilain movement periods. Thats right, manned by RAAF ATC outside of RAAF flying hours, not civilians. Should greater periods of control be required by RAAF ATC (ie weekends), manning is such that there would be insufficient control during the very busy week days. It is a RAAF base manned by RAAF ATC, not civilians.

The issue (as you rightly point out to a degree) is the pace at which Williamtown (referring to the guest civilian RPT use) movements have increased. The practise cable engagements, circuit training and other circuit dense activities that occur this time of year are at worst 'accomodated' by the military flying program, and are generally well scheduled and deconflicted from other movements. The ability of RAAF ATC in these situations (particularly when something goes sideways) is a credit to them and the military pilots who work with them.

While your average F/A-18 pilot is doing his best to meet ATC requirements, steer his 4 ship of '44000lbs fire breathing war chariots' (ack Simmo) about the sky and meet the tactic training requirements of his category - he is not particularly concerned about (or able to avoid due takeoff speed) light traffic within the ATZ and is therefore afforded an IFR departure and the seperation that entails.

It is all about priorities, and the length of this thread has highlighted many of them. Some times, one must consider that his flight is in fact not the first priority or the immediate concern. Next time you hold at Nobbys I hope you are offered 1000'. Please take a look around at what is becoming a very immpressive city (and its ever busier military airport), and focus your efforts on the improvement of wider aviation services and other areas in Australia you have made a positive improvement in - and not the cheap shot slander and 'military bashing' of those who choose to take a public servants wage to defend it.

Perhaps you could ask for a WLM clearance one day, drop in to see a hornet Sqn and the Approach personnel, and show your support as a prominent Australian (I'm sure they'd take a ride in the Augusta too by the way).

N_r

[fangorboy]

NR

Well said mate

FB

[vans]

Many contributors to this thread have tried to explain away the perceived lack of co-operation from the military in the area of faciliting transit of the WMX areas by VFR aircraft because they claim that WLM is essentially a military aerodrome. By this premise the claim is made that the military have no obligation whatsoever to facilitate anything to civil users.

I beg to differ. The symbol on all navigation charts clearly designates WLM as joint military/civil. Terminal charts for the aerodrome also make it clear that WLM allows civil operations provided civil users obtain prior permission from the military. I’ll admit that in that respect alone, it is different to aerodromes like Canberra where no military permission for use of the aerodrome is required. However, the fact that the military do facilitate civil operations and that they do make provision for VFR traffic to transit the WMX areas via certain lanes, does not mean that no-one can question their methods of doing this. I believe that all Dick Smith is attempting to do is to suggest that there may be a better and safer way for VFR aircraft to be facilitated in the WMX areas. By his own account, the military have indeed admitted as much and have promised to do something about it……apparently over a long period of time, but nothing has eventuated. You really shouldn’t be surprised that Dick has become a little frustrated. The man is simply asking that the military review the way they facilitate VFR operations and has suggested a safer way that they might consider doing things. Why is this such a seemingly onerous task for the military to accomplish, particularly when they have already said they will do it?

[Dick Smith]

Vans, you are spot on with your post. Of course there will now be posts claiming it is a CASA decision!
It requires goodwill from both organisations and an understanding that holding aircraft should be a last resort procedure after all others have been reviewed.

Gundog01 I generally admire all of the people in the military-thats one of the reasons I spent an arduous week about a year ago visiting our forces in the middle east.

I have obviously failed at communicating to those in decision making positions the importance of introducing the most efficient ATC procedures and airspace. Yes ,they have told me they intend to do this however I imagine other more important things get in the way.
It appears to me that there is not a lot of training on the importance of reducing waste and minimising cost.
I have always been obsessed with asking advice and then making the tough decision ,to the best of my abilities,as to which is the correct advice,and then acting on this.
Some of those I have met in the military have told me they are simply not interested in how other countries operate their airspace-they are totally happy with the way we do it here!
If there are others who have constructive ideas I how I can achieve success on this dificult issue I will welcome all advice.

[Pera]

Van,

they claim that WLM is essentially a military aerodrome.By this premise the claim is made that the military have no obligation whatsoever to facilitate anything to civil users.

WLM is a military aerodrome. There's obviously an agreement for scheduled flights to use it and PILS etc are accommodated (reading the ersa entry) but all these are secondary to it's military purpose.

However, the fact that the military do facilitate civil operations and that they do make provision for VFR traffic to transit the WMX areas via certain lanes, does not mean that no-one can question their methods of doing this.

No-one is suggesting that you can't question the military. The military operate under the same legislated rules as ASA so are you questioning the right people. Some have said that the airspace needs to be changed and that the military can do this, but that is not correct. Any change to the classification of the airspace would effect all civilian and military users. DS is nowhere near convincing all the airspace users of the need for change. His safety arguments are not comprehensive and as others have suggested, would probably result in the coastal lane being closed if he ran TV adds. The public has little sympathy for private pilots. If you can afford to own a plane.... (that is not my view fyi.)

By his own account, the military have indeed admitted as much and have promised to do something about it……apparently over a long period of time

They did do something. DS has stated that the military was a big supporter of NAS. If NAS had come in, the military would have had new rules and they may have changed the way they process the VFR transits. It didn't, (not the military's fault) so they couldn't change their procedures.

The man is simply asking that the military review the way they facilitate VFR operations and has suggested a safer way that they might consider doing things. Why is this such a seemingly onerous task for the military to accomplish, particularly when they have already said they will do it?

The military are not the people that change these rules and procedures. The military do not make rules about civil aircraft separation standards.

DS has quoted US class C procedures which allow target resolution and 500ft standards between all aircraft. This would be a solution for DS and the military would have to introduce it if it was legislated, but they can't implement it without legislation, so what is he asking them to do?

GA pilots need to lobby the correct organisations if they want the rules to change. NAS was recently defeated, so there is a lot of opposition to the changes that DS wants to make. DS's frustration should be directed at the right people. He has admitted that the military supports change.

Maybe there is a way for ATC to process VFR aircraft through WLM airspace more efficiently within the current rules. I've seen no good suggestions on this thread though.

[vans]

I am sure that you understand that the military have the first say in any changes that affect the airspace which surrounds WLM. You say Some have said that the airspace needs to be changed and that the military can do this, but that is not correct I am quite sure that all that restricted airspace didn’t get there without input from the military in the first place. Sure it required ASA approval before it was promulgated, but nothing will happen with ASA unless the military give their approval or input in the first place. This is why the first line of seeking approval is with the military.

Once again This would be a solution for DS and the military would have to introduce it if it was legislated, but they can't implement it without legislation, so what is he asking them to do? All he is asking (I understand) is that the military look at a safer way of transiting VFR aircraft (and one of those ways he has suggested, is directly overhead the airfield) rather than holding aircraft over houses or the ocean. If the military have some strong augment against this and can offer nothing better than is now being used, then let them come out and say it. On the other hand, if they believe there may be a better solution, then co-operate in finding that solution and then the ball will start rolling. Without the military making the first move, nothing will happen with ASA. Surely this is not too much to ask – authority in the past (whether it be military or civil) have always been slow to react to perceived safety issues until an accident or an incident forced the issue, and usually after someone was injured or killed. Let’s not wait for that to happen here when all it takes is for a little co-operation on the part of the military to get things moving. After that the ball will pass to ASA and maybe the necessary changes will take place. A refusal to do anything is risking a lot.

Bye the way, NAS was never defeated, it was changed somewhat (rolled back) but much of it still exists today, for the better or worse I not going to argue on this thread.

[Gundog01]

All he is asking (I understand) is that the military look at a safer way of transiting VFR aircraft (and one of those ways he has suggested, is directly overhead the airfield) rather than holding aircraft over houses or the ocean. If the military have some strong augment against this and can offer nothing better than is now being used, then let them come out and say it.

Circuit training, PFL training, RTB from western airspace, large formations operating at Salf Ash Air Weapons Range. Any of these activities could hold up a VFR civvy over head Willy just as much as IFR separation standards. They dont happen at the same time each day. You can't help bad timing when you transit, conflictions will occur, and ATC separate by the rules.

I am sure that you understand that the military have the first say in any changes that affect the airspace which surrounds WLM.

Changing the dimensions of airspace is one thing, but changing legislation is another thing. The military is generally accommodating when an idea is presented that is safe, practical and will actually make an improvement. Take the new RPT lanes through large chunks of the overwater airspace.

All he is asking (I understand) is that the military look at a safer way of transiting VFR aircraft (and one of those ways he has suggested, is directly overhead the airfield) rather than holding aircraft over houses or the ocean.

I think you will find that the area around Williamtown Aerodrome is pretty heavily populated. So why would home owners want these lighties that are about to fall out of the sky flying over their homes?????

I dont disagree that we should always look for better procedures, but we need a well thought out idea that not only satisifies the military and civvy circles, but is safe and most of all practical.

DG01

[ozbiggles]

Vans, I think you will find if a safe, practical way is suggested as a way to 'improve' transits for GA aircraft then no one will have any real objections.
If you re read someones posts on this thread and the broad/general and inaccurate statements made on people in the defence force I think you will find what most people (well me at least) have taken objection to is some rather disgusting remarks made about people in the defence force. If you want I'll paste and copy them here, however those who have read the posts from the start will know what I mean. (first example is what was said about the Defence force effort in a SAR 25 years ago, which was in FACT incorrect)
Again I repeat, if there is better way of doing it that is safe and practical lets do it.
But If someone wants to throw mud, they shouldn't be surprised if no one wants to help them clean up their own mess!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Surely the solution to this problem is simple!

1) Close Williamstown as a military airbase. Having XXX adjacent to / in the middle of such a high density population area and impeding a major N/S air corridor has not place in todays world.

2) Sell Williamstown off to the highest bidder - cause that's what we to with valuable aerodrome assets.

3) Move the Squadron(s) currently based at Williamstown to Sherger. This will help to populate and develop Cape York - which is something that badly needs to be done in Australia's strategic interest.

The only downside that I can think of to the above proposal would be the long transit times if an FA18 is needed to intercept a wayward Cessna that looks like it might be threatening some major event in the harbour city. However, given the speed difference between a C150 and an FA18, a supersonic dash across the penninsula and down the eastern seaboard should have the FA18 on the scene in no time and would be a good training exercise anyway.

Dr :8

[BombsGone]

Maybe we could solve the problem by charging GA more to cover the costs of relocating Williamtown. Lets call it an even billion and just divide it by the number of bug smashers using the williamtown corridor. You don't get something for nothing now.

:E:E:E

[vans]

Ozbiggles

It would appear that the broad/general and inaccurate statements made on people in the defence force have got up your nose and this is a good reason why the military should ignore a potential safety issue. They (the military) are big boys, and I’m sure they can handle anything Dick Smith can throw at them without sulking and withdrawing co-operation.

Gundog01

Circuit training, PFL training, RTB from western airspace, large formations operating at Salf Ash Air Weapons Range. Any of these activities could hold up a VFR civvy over head Willy just as much as IFR separation standards. They dont happen at the same time each day. You can't help bad timing when you transit, conflictions will occur, and ATC separate by the rules

No-one is suggesting that there wont be any holding or separation required in any alternative VFR route that goes through the WML area, 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.

Changing the dimensions of airspace is one thing, but changing legislation is another thing

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 home owners want these lighties that are about to fall out of the sky flying over their homes?????

My point exactly………lets look for an alternative.

I dont disagree that we should always look for better procedures, but we need a well thought out idea that not only satisifies the military and civvy circles, but is safe and most of all practical

Again, my point……..why can’t we get some co-operation to do this? I believe that’s what DS is asking for.


ForkedTailedDrKiller ………great idea – why aren’t you an AVM in the military, we need men of your potential.

[Fragnasty]

ForkTailedDrKiller,

Interesting idea, but what about closing RAAF Williamtown instead?

Inaccurate spelling has the habit of making oneself look like a bit of a fool, and sort of takes the steam out of the argument - don't you agree?

Of course, that's just my opinion....

[Islander Jock]

Fragnasty.... beat me to it.:ok:

Last time I checked, the only military based at Williamstown was an army reserve depot.

[CaptainMidnight]

What has any of this got to do with ASA? The airspace regulator is CASA, and the airspace policy authority is DoTRS.

I'm not convinced there is much of a problem anyway. If there was, it would have been brought up well before now at industry forums such as RAPAC.

The only one complaining about being held is RHS, and wading through this thread, one other.

You fly near a busy military base, what do you expect. If you want to know how best to transit and what times - phone beforehand and ask. Same as CTA transit. Maybe even - gasp - lodge a flight plan.

Know the system and use it. Being lazy and expecting to be accommodated ad-hoc, you take your chances.

[Fragnasty]

Dick,

Managing an environment where jets easily capable of 450kts have the potential to mix with light aircraft doing 100-odd knots up the coast is not easy. In addition, the fighters have the potential to change their trajectory reasonably quickly, and due to the amount of ground they cover, it is worth having the ability to keep dissimilar aircraft types at arm's length. This is not done to piss off the GA types trying to transit the corridor, it is done in the interests of safety.

Yes, the procedures at Williamtown may seem a little conservative, but they work.

When you're mixing high performance fighters with aircraft at the other end of the aviation spectrum, I don't think a conservative approach is a bad idea.

Choice bro'!

[Fragnasty]

ForkTailedDrKiller,

..and while we're at it, you might want to send them to RAAF Base Scherger.


Choice bro'!

[Dick Smith]

Captain Midnight, the main reason that it has not been brought up at recent RAPAC meetings is that those who have not flown VFR extensively overseas would not know there were better ways of doing things. Many VFR pilots I know believe they are indeed fortunate to be allowed through the airspace at all and would not dare complain about delays for the fear that they would be refused entry in the future.
It's a similar situation with some ATC's. They do not know that other modern aviation countries have developed modern procedures which move more traffic with less delays. How would they know, for the overseas visit programme that I introduced as CAA chairman in 1991 was stopped soon after I retired.
Fragnasty, I have been refering to delays that occur when just civil aircraft are present-not military.

[vans]

The airspace regulator is CASA, and the airspace policy authority is DoTRS

Curses……and here I was just getting used to ASA!

I'm not convinced there is much of a problem anyway.

Could this be because you’ve never had to transit the airspace in the manner discussed on regular occasions?

If you want to know how best to transit and what times - phone beforehand and ask. Same as CTA transit. Maybe even - gasp - lodge a flight plan

Know the system and use it. Being lazy and expecting to be accommodated ad-hoc, you take your chances.

I tried this procedure a few years back on a couple of occasions. After phoning I was told to track via either one of the two VFR lanes. I asked about potential holding and was told call at Nobbys if you decide to go that way, and we’ll let you know. Sure enough I was held over the sea near Nobbys. Flight plans in the system make no difference either way.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with being lazy.

As an aside to this, I have often arrived ad-hoc at the boundary to East Sale military airspace, requested a clearance and have always been issued one directly overhead ESL, thence to my destination. Different airfield, different traffic perhaps, but one would think that if it’s possible at ESL then it should be possible to at least consider it at WLM on the occasions when traffic permits.

Know the system and use it

Arriving ad-hoc at CTA boundary and requesting a clearance prior, is part of the system…..read the AIP! It’s done every day with great success. I can understand however, why a busy controller may not like it and the odd delay may result. But we’re not talking about this. We are talking about holding aircraft over unsafe areas and what seems to be a refusal to consider alternatives.

[Green on, Go!]

Comparing clearance availability between YMES and YWLM is akin to comparing apples and oranges. It's just not reasonable.

[Howabout]

Dick,

I posted a couple of days ago and I believe that you should provide a reply. I don't know whether you think that additional posts will bury the query, but I don't feel that the question should be allowed to die. You made a very firm assertion; an assertion to the effect that the most representative GA body, in particular their president, supported a TV campaign about procedures at Williamtown.

Here's what I asked:

Dick,

We now have a bit of a dilemma. You claim that Col Rodgers supported your push for TV adverts with the assertion that:

By the way, CaptainMidnight, I’ve spoken to Col Rodgers, the President of AOPA, and he totally supports television announcements in relation to Williamtown and single engine aircraft as I have discussed on this thread.

We now have Tim Blatch telling us that:

Col has asked me to post a clarification. In his conversation with Dick, Col agreed that orbiting at 500' one mile out to sea was an undesirable situation. He did not discuss any television advertising with Dick, and Col believes that an advertising campaign such as that described in this forum would not be in the best interest of General Aviation.

There's a mis-match here on who said what to whom - can we please have some clarification Dick.

Dick, you have not addressed the question. Your last post on this subject stated words to the effect that you were waiting for 'a call back from Col Rodgers'. Has Col called back and what did he say?

I think that we deserve an answer. There is a credibility issue here.

[Bell_Flyer]

Captain Midnight says:

why should the military give way to light aircraft, and those things that (sic) don't want to get held up then don't fly near the bases.

So Captain, tell me, are we a country with a military or a military with a country?