Newcastle hits 1 million

[qantel]

With Willy taking in a million punters through its gates in December.. And major tarmac reno's. Goss on the street is Tiger to increase its schedule from Melbourne and something in the Fin Review today about a possible Tiger hub....or lair? Could this really work? :confused:

[Lasiorhinus]

It does always make me smile, when I hear Tiger on the radio...

http://www.feedem.co.uk/cat-41/cat-food-64/go-cat-74/friskies-go-cat-complete-995-2040_zoom.jpg

[Capt Claret]

Lasiorhinus

Are you saying there's something fishy about Tiger? :p

[Spodman]

It does always make me smile, when I hear Tiger on the radio...For those not in the know Tiger is supposed to be pronounced "Go-cat" on the radio. I suspect it might be pronounced "Tiger" on the intercom, because it usually comes out at "Ti... Go-cat blah, blah, blah..." on the radio:}

[Dick Smith]

Mmmm, one million passengers. When I flew through the airspace last Saturday 5 January at about 9.00 am, there wasn’t even a UNICOM operating. Jet airline aircraft certainly, but not even a UNICOM to provide a basic safety service. The absolute irresponsibility of the military is mind boggling.

[Islander Jock]

Dick,
Just what type of "Safety" is a unicom operator going to provide to aircraft inbound and outbound?
IFR will be notified of other IFR traffic. Within the CTAF(R) boundary self separaton for VHF arriving and departing. Another very poor cheap shot at the military by a grumpy old man.

I think you might find the figures of 1,000,000 in December are total to date rather than total for the month. Can't imaging Willy handling 32,258 pax every day for a month. :eek:

[Dick Smith]

Islander Jock, when I flew through Williamtown it was a “calling in the blind”, “fail dangerous” system. If a VFR aircraft had given a call when at the 24 mile boundary at 500 feet, there would be no way that the AFRU beep back unit would reply.

If there was at least a UNICOM operator there, it becomes a “fail safe” system – i.e. the pilot will call again until the UNICOM operator answers. It would be better to have air traffic control, however having nothing is simply a disgrace and in my view we will end up with a serious incident or an accident.

It is interesting how many posters on this site do not seem to understand that aviation in relation to airlines is normally based on a “fail safe” system. Nowhere in the world (other than Australia) have I experienced a system which is based on blind calling, and hoping the other person’s radio is on the correct frequency, the volume is turned up and the speaker correctly selected.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Can someone who uses Willy regularly point out something for me here. I just checked my ERSA, how I read it is the coastal route is NOT available without a clearance. If I have read it correctly, regardless of CTAF procedures, the coastal route has a clearance limit at Nobby's going north and Broughton Island going south. Inland route available regardless of activity. Am I correct in my reading?

If this is the case, The coastal route fails SAFE. No contact, no clearance, no entry!

[CASR139]

Sorry Dick but if a pilot doesn't take any notice of the absent AFRU signal, why would he take notice of an absent UNICOM response?

Maybe we should train pilots to react to the AFRU in a positive way.

[Dick Smith]

Ozbusdriver, when the airspace is not active and Williamtown is a CTAF, why would anyone bother to fly the coastal route? There would not be a requirement. Pilots simply fly through the CTAF as they would at any other airport.

[Mr.Buzzy]

Willytown is a JOKE!

It's time the people who pay RAAF ATC wages tell them when they should be open for business!

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbbbb b

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Never mind, hangover from the days of Mil CTRs being no go zones regardless of activity.

[Stationair8]

The military 24/7, except Mon-Thur 0900am-1700am, Fri 0900am-1330am and Sat/Sun are RDO. So please only invade during work hours. Thankyou.

[Dick Smith]

Landof4X, it is great to see that you strongly support the beep back and think it is even better than a radio operator at the airport. One day someone will no doubt tell you where the beep backs came from, and tell you about the resistance from a small number of professional pilots to their installation.

It is sad that you seem to be so bitter. Why don’t you give me a phone call on 0408 640 221 and let’s discuss some of the issues. All the best for the New Year.

[Green on, Go!]

The absolute irresponsibility of the military is mind boggling.

Why is this the RAAF's problem???:mad: Is this not Newcastle Airports's issue? RAAF ATC at Willy is staffed to provide ATS for local military traffic, is says that in ERSA. If anyone is being irresponsible isn't NAP dragging the chain by facilitating more RPT services on one hand, yet not ensuring those services are adequately protected on the other? That said, I believe various agencies at various levels of government have consulted and ATS hours at Willy are in for a major overhaul in the coming months to help protect RPT services. Extra staff have been posted to Willy and when they are sufficiently trained and endorsed, I believe hours will be extended, including to the weekends.

The military 24/7, except Mon-Thur 0900am-1700am, Fri 0900am-1330am and Sat/Sun are RDO. So please only invade during work hours. Thankyou.

Mate, been in the military for a while now and can safely say I've never worked hours as attractive as those...

[Islander Jock]

Thur 0900am-1700am, Fri 0900am-1330am :confused::confused:
1700am er exactly which time zone are we referring to here?

[qantel]

Tiger on the loose at Newcastle Airport!
18/01/2008
Low cost airline Tiger Airways will, for the first time, pounce on its only New South Wales destination, Newcastle Airport, this morning at 11.35am.
The inaugural TT7764 flight from Melbourne will bring up to 180 passengers and be greeted by a roaring reception from local dignitaries, media and Airport staff.
Tiger Airways will operate two return flights daily between Newcastle and Melbourne, with immediate effect.
Newcastle Airport CEO, Paul Hughes, welcomed the airline to Newcastle Airport and highlighted the benefits the new service will bring to tourism and business.
“Tiger Airways will add an additional 5,000 seats on the Newcastle-Melbourne route each week. The timings of the new flights departing Newcastle at 12.05pm and 3.45pm are ideal for both the business and leisure traveller.
“As Newcastle Airport continues to grow, the real winners will be the travelling public; the introduction of a new airline stimulates competition and drives low-cost travel options,” Paul said.
The introduction of Tiger Airways to Newcastle Airport increases the number of daily return flights to Melbourne from seven to nine.
Newcastle Airport proudly works with local tourism to promote the Hunter and surrounding regions interstate and local tourism is expected to benefit from the introduction of a new airline and increased services,” Paul said.
The launch of a new airline is the first in a string of new services and infrastructure development in 2008.
“Newcastle Airport is currently one of Australia’s fastest growing airports.
“The apron expansion project, which will allow more aircraft at the airport simultaneously, is expected to be completed mid-March, Jetstar is increasing its services by 50% in June and the Airport is hopeful of announcements of increased frequency and new destinations later in the year.
“The impact of these new services and projects will not only provide passengers with greater choice, but have a significant and positive impact on the local economy,” Paul said.
Newcastle Airport joins 12 other Australian airports to welcome Tiger Airways.
Promotional fares to Melbourne one-way started from as low as $9.95 and are available from www.tigerairways.com

[Dick Smith]

Green On, Go!, you state:

Why is this the RAAF's problem??? It could be because the military has steadfastly refused to allow other people into the tower at Williamtown. There has been talk over many years to have a system where Airservices controllers can be in the military reserve and provide service in military airspace. This has even had support from some of the top people in the military – but just about everything has been successfully resisted by those in the middle ranks.

As I have said in another thread, the hypocrisy is staggering. They will hold single engine aircraft at 500 feet over a densely packed beach at Nobbys, but on the weekend (when the traffic densities are far greater) they provide absolutely no service at all.

It is obviously not the safety of airline passengers they are interested in – surely it is just a simple resistance to change in every way possible.

[airtags]

qantel

the corporate spin might have been a bit too fast I just noted that TT775 NTL to MEL was cancelled today! Sorry but Tiger's goal to make Willy Sydney's second airport is a too bit far fetched for the time being.

As for the other suggestions on this thread about NAL dishing out some dollars - don't hold your breath. - remember the major entity behind NAL is the local Council. .....Like all good Councils they'll only invest in what they can get revenue from ..like carparks and parking fines from which they took >7mill in 05/06...(kind of like the gift that keeps giving eh!)

Besides if they donated to the cause it'd probably just end up as a revenue item and trigger a bigger bonus for some managers.

[Dick Smith]

The military air traffic control decision makers in Canberra are supposedly so paranoid about safety and collision prevention that they insist that aircraft be held at Nobbys, outside their zone.

Why then, on the weekends (when surely it must be the off duty controllers with their families who are flying in and out of Williamtown) are they happy to operate without any air traffic control at all? Surely this must mean that the whole thing is a sham.

It has nothing to do with safety, it is all about keeping the status quo and some power base. What other reason could there be?

As the traffic density is higher on the weekend than during the week, and as aircraft do not get held on the weekends and do not have any air traffic control at all, what is going on? Is it that the air traffic controllers are truly concerned but they need someone like Dick Smith to bring up the hypocrisy?

[Green on, Go!]

The military air traffic control decision makers in Canberra are supposedly so paranoid about safety and collision prevention that they insist that aircraft be held at Nobbys, outside their zone.

Not True.
I'm led to belive that may pilots are of the opinion that RHS may not be appropriately licenced to fly any aircraft at all!! Could it be that the ATC staff a WLM do not wish to facilitate such a flagrant violation of CASRs. Perhaps they believe in the concept of affordable safety. It must be that they feel that it is safer to keep RHS out of mil restricted airspace and they have heard that he can afford it.

Why then, on the weekends (when surely it must be the off duty controllers with their families who are flying in and out of Williamtown) are they happy to operate without any air traffic control at all? Surely this must mean that the whole thing is a sham.

Could it be that RAAF ATC hierarchy are not at work but rather on the densely packed beach at Nobby's. Surely they must have observed RHS conducting orbits where the turns were very poorly balanced and the aircraft was consistently at risk of stall. Surely these spineless incompetents must come to the realisation that RHS needs more holding practice.

As the traffic density is higher on the weekend than during the week

Again, not true.

Is it that the air traffic controllers are truly concerned but they need someone like Dick Smith to bring up the hypocrisy?

Please God, no.
:yuk:

Dick you contradict yourself again. In the first paragraph you assert that the RAAF are 'so paranoid about safety and collision prevention' yet elsewhere you suggest that Air Force is so complacent about safety as to not provide an ATC service on weekends.

[Dick Smith]

Green on, Go!, the humour is OK, however this is quite a serious matter. Does it seem logical to you that there would be an increase in VFR traffic through Williamtown on the weekends when most VFR pilots fly? How could anyone measure this increase when no clearance is required?

By the way, I’m not contradicting myself – I’m simply pointing out the contradiction of holding aircraft outside the zone on one minute, then providing no service at all the next.

There are many people reading this thread who are as horrified as I am with the present situation – where it appears that the industry has been completely let down by the regulator.

[SM4 Pirate]

where it appears that the industry has been completely let down by the regulator. But how do you fix it? The draft part 71 is in hiatus (back to the drawing board).

Dick you seem to think the stuff used in the very early 90's is still acceptable justification; despite the regulations/rules/laws/understanding of risk, regarding airspace totally changing.

The OAR is now the 'body' that determines airspace; what charter/mantra do they have to really do it? If they had a 'Part' to work with then perhaps they could apply it; take the YMAV example; you caused the previous minister embarrassment and he demanded that they look into it (triggered a study); is this the plan now with the new minister and YWLM?

On the YMAV study; will it give you the answer you wanted?

It's more than just pax numbers (and you know it); it's total movements GA & RPT, terrain, airspace complexities/complications (such as why we have a TWR at YMEN) as well that must be examined.

I'm not saying I disagree with change, I'm all for it, but it would be nice if we had a simple consistent approach; it's incredulous that Qantas stopped flying to Perth in the middle of the night due no ATC on Perth Approach when there were 8 movements forecast, but they fly unabated to many other Class G only locations. Perhaps Qantas thinks DTI is safer than TIBA/TRA?

[Dick Smith]

SM4 Pirate, the modern aviation countries that I know of do not have a hard written “trigger” to instigate a safety study for providing a manned tower at what was previously uncontrolled airspace. They simply use professional judgment and commonsense. That is what we used in the past.

The USA establishment and disestablishment formula does not have a trigger number for the study to be instigated. It is simply done by the judgment of those involved.

If you look at Draft Part 71, the trigger figures were so high that in most cases the study would never be done. Commonsense alone says that if you have over 1 million passengers at an airport that it would be worthwhile spending the small amount of money in performing the approved Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria for Airport Traffic Control Towers study.

The Office of Airspace Regulation at CASA can do this at any time, but for some reason they have steadfastly resisted. They are even working on a completely new cost benefit study for these Class D towers, when a perfectly satisfactory one (that has been used for many years) already exists.

I reckon it is all about stopping any change at all, so those responsible will not be held accountable. Of course it won’t work out this way if an accident happens.

I agree with your comments about Qantas. Once again, the whole system seems to be on a “don’t change anything” approach, rather than objective decision making.

I say again, a proven document exists which takes into account many relevant details that would objectively show whether it was cost effective to provide Class D airspace and a tower at Avalon and Williamtown. The study could be done in probably one or two weeks, however this has been resisted.

The US is performing establishment and discontinuance studies all the time and they have seen no reason to change their approach.