Clearances for VFR in ADF control zones

[Jabawocky]

We have seen a fair bit of debate lately regarding certain military controlled airspace, and without this one being trashed would those who use these zones like to comment on the variations and acceptability of the clearances given or rejected at the various zones around Australia.

Assuming there is a real problem at Willy, lets compare this to the others, and mainly those in busier areas around Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Townsville or Darwin. Yes Sherger does not count!;) See if there really is a REAL problem or not.

Do not bring in garbage about recent bad wx decissions ending in prangs, just real world experience.

I have thought about this a bit over the last day or so, and even wonder if places like around Willy are more a problem in a faster machine as you have little time to deal with everything? A bit like departure from YBAF heading west!

BTW..... None of the Mil zones I have been through have ever given me a problem, of course that has not included the one north of Sydney. None of these should be too scary for a new PPL or an older infrequent flyer.

J:ok:

Good work so far keep it up! Any newbies feel free to comment.:)

[Ando1Bar]

:ok: to the AMB controllers. I fly VFR through there to/from YBAF up to ten times a week and never come across any really problems. There is no problem keeping you away from the C-17 or F-111 circuit traffic.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I have flown through Willy in my Bonanza lots of times. Complete non issue...arrive a specified point, call on specified frequency and then comply with clearance.

Exactly the same as every other CTA, civil or mil, in Australia.

[oldpinger]

From the other side of the fence- agree totally, have heard very few knock-backs for civ traffic by ATC, only then when a/c had no working transponder with weather less than VMC and Mil IFR traffic in the area. This was in Nowra and it's generally a LOT quieter than Willy however.

Gets interesting though when someone decides to blunder in without a clearance, with transponder on.:ugh: and suddenly doing a 180 when approach asks them what their intentions are...:rolleyes:

[Atlas Shrugged]

Complete non issue...arrive a specified point, call on specified frequency and then comply with clearance.

Exactly!

I must have transitted Willy somewhere between 90 and 100 times and have NEVER been knocked back for clearance in either direction, VFR or IFR, save once when northbound VFR and sent out over Glouster at 10,000 due MIL traffic somewhere in the SW corner. No big deal can't really remember it, just complied and got on with it. It was a nice day and I enjoyed the flying.

[Hasselhof]

I flew through the Tindal control zone VFR every day last week (and several times a week for months now). There is an exercise going on up here at the moment with a whole swag of military aircraft including F/A 18s, F111s, C17s, C130s and Caribous. There have been times where we've had multiple F/A 18 arrivals and departures in a short period sharing the same piece of sky with several 210s, GA8s, 206s, Kingairs, 310s and Barons.

Want to know how many times I've been knocked back for a clearance?

None

Want to know how much holding I've had to do?

None

Want to know how hard it is to get in and out of there considering the traffic and the beginnings of some interesting wet season build ups?

Not at all

All of the Tindal controllers have treated me fantastically even during periods when its obvious that the stress level at the other end of the radio set is high and rising. Great work on their part every time :ok:

I'd have to say that my only criticism so far would be that perhaps that military controllers tend to have fairly optimistic perceptions of what a light, unpressurised piston single or twin can do in terms of decent profile and speed control. There have been a few occasions (and more than a few in Darwin) where I've been asked cleared a visual approach while already on a base position but have been held up at 4000 or so feet for traffic seperation. That's not really practical, though I've never been knocked back nor treated improperly when I've consequently requested extra track miles or offered to join crosswind onto the opposite side circuit to help out with both traffic separation and maintaining the integrity of my passengers ear drums.

[flying-spike]

Accumulated over 2000hrs flying in and out of Darwin. The only problems I ever had was with tower controllers under training giving "challenging" clearances. Exercise a bit of airmanship and captains perogative and problem fixed. Maybe we should be doing more in training to "de-sensitise" pilots to controlled airspace, both civil and military and reinforce the "command" aspect of the pilot licence.

[Ixixly]

Student pilot out of YBAF, have travelled through AMB many many many times and can't say i've ever had a real problem, except once when they offered me a ten minute wait and being a pretty inexperienced pilot i decided not to wait, blundered around and slipped into airspace by accident!! Controllers were really good in this occasion when i explained that i was a training pilot on a training flight and guided me back through without a real fuss even with C-17s buzzing about! And none of the clearances given to me have been unreasonable nor have i been unable to comply with them even with my low experience.

Real big thumbs up to the AMB boys and a girls in ATC who have to deal with a fair bit of student traffic bumbling through on top of the usual VFR, you do a great job, a number of times i've even gotten a pretty good close look at the C-17s and F-111s which is a real testament to their ability to squeeze us through and reduce delays!

[Hugh Jarse]

When I was a PPL holder I transited WLM many times, both via the coastal and inland routes. I never had any problems obtaining a clearance.

Along a similar line, when I was instructing MANY of my trainees used the VFR routes, particularly coastal, both during the latter stages of nav training (circa 50hrs experience) and once fully licenced. All seemed to have little difficulty dealing with it, both during training (and afterwards, based on feedback).

It's just not that hard!:ugh:

If you ask me what I think of how IFR's are treated by WLM ATC, that's another story!:yuk:

[Jabawocky]

Thanks Hugh!

So do tell more on the IFR issues........

J:ok:

[sms777]

There is nothing hard about transiting through ADF's in Oz. All the above posts prove once again that there is only one person on Pprune having issues about it. Do not even have to give you a hint who it is. :=
His posts make good entartainment sometimes though... :rolleyes:

:ok:

[Jabawocky]

Goday sms:ok:

Luv ya work!

Yes its true. I prefer CTA everyday, but I just wanted to prove the point to Dick and others without the thread being binned that you can have a debate about ATC services without all the hype that gets out of hand. One Mod actually told me this morning this thread would not last.............. so far so good so, if you want to pad it out with more posts do so, the more feedback the better. It just might get a few points driven home to those that need it. And in particular those newer PPL's that may actually be afraid or not so happy with using CTA and do put themselves in less favourable country.

Cheers!

J:ok:

Edited to make more sense & be more descriptive. note to self do not do things in a hurry:ugh:

[Super Cecil]

I have had trouble with both Willy and Amberly. Have been held at Nobby's? in a rough as guts 40 knot westerly, I was tracking northbound at 500' over water, that was a year or so ago. There was no other traffic on Willy approach.

A month or so ago I was held for half an hour outside Amberly, I was trying to operate about ten miles to the north of AMB up to 500' above ground. AMB were notified the day before, I was told on the phone half an hour before I took off AMB was not active then as I approached I called anyway and was told to hold. There were two 111's landed after the half hour holding then AMB shut down, I had a transponder with appropriate or allocated code. I was no threat to inbound traffic and was operating 1500' below their path.

A couple of years ago I was diverted around Nowra, it was early (befor nine am) on a weekday, there was also no other traffic on the frequency. I was tracking northbound over water at 500.
I have been through military maybe six times in the last couple of years, I avoid them if I possibly can.

[Super Cecil]

No comments boys? There are a heap of pats on the back for not being held up, any thoughts on obstruction for no reason?

[Jabawocky]

I am struggling to recall being held anywhere, other than an orbit prior to crossing YBBN.

have been told to remain OCTA while they get other stuff done, but the clearance arrives by the time I need it and never had to duck and weave.

I do know folk in Sydney that avoid the Willy CTA if they can, but thats not to say its a road block. I will try to find out more.

Any others find it hard to transit?

J:ok:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I go in and out of Townsville both IFR and VFR and have no complaints. With rare exception - always looked after well even when they are shooting at stuff in the many Restricted Areas around YBTL, and I try to help with the flow wherever possible - but I wish they would NOT refer to me as a Baron!

Approach controller did get a bit precious a few weeks ago when I proceeded to track direct to my destination after competing the required turn on departure (left hand turn off 01 for a TL-MA track). 99.999% of the time this is what I am told to do, this time I got chipped for not intercepting my departure track within 5 nm. Fair enough - I was in the wrong, but the difference could only have been 1 nm at most. The "I'll let it go this time" was not necessary! So now I track to intercept outbound track within 5 nm every time, by the book, and as soon as the Appr controller realises what I am doing they tell me to track direct from present position!!! Go figure!

Big improvement from a few years ago when VFR traffic got scattered to all points of the compass when an RAAF aircraft called taxying or inbound. In the worse example of this I was radar vectored off a 10 mile final for Rwy 01 after a Herc called 40 nm out inbound - and finally landed on 07 about 20 min later.

Then there was the radar vector that would have put me into the side of a mountain, but that's a whole other story!

Haven't flown VFR through Amberley when active for 26 years - but don't recall it being any big deal!

Dr :8

[No Further Requirements]

OK Cec, I'll bite!

The big picture may have been different to what thought you could or could not hear. Nowra may have had Jindaviks flying around, who knows? Amberley may have had no-com aircraft buzzing about. And WLM approach may not have had anyone you could hear on freq, but maybe the aircraft were with the tower on final for an instrument approach? It is Approach's job to separate and sequence IFR arrivals from other traffic (usually). That does not mean they are on Approach's frequency. The circuit area, generally, goes out to 5NM but the aircraft will call TWR at about 10NM. Or they could have been on no-retransmit UHF operations! Who knows?

Point is, just as we can't tell what is exactly going on in the cockpit, sometime aircrew don't have the big picture either.

As a professional ATC, I can say without a doubt that no one is ever held without a reason. If you were genuinely concerned, ask for a phone number and ring ATC. But instead of asking 'Why wasn't I cleared through immediately?' start off with 'Not sure what the hold up was, but would there have been any way in which I could have assisted in getting a clearance more quicckly?'

Cheers,

NFR.

[DBTW]

It begins...

[Hugh Jarse]

Jabawocky,
From my little part of the world I've observed the following (which is probably systemic, rather than individual and NOT taking a shot at military ATC). This being observed over 14+ years of operating into YWLM:

1. Apparent lack of appreciation of standard turboprop descent profiles, leading to excessive intermediate descent limitations at altitude. Such limits then requiring extra manoeuvring/track miles (and higher workload to both the ATCO and aircraft crew);

2. Apparently poor capability to handle a moderate number of IFR's compared with civil ATC;

3. Excessively long co-ordination times (on the ground), ie. getting a release. Understandable when there is a recovery under way, but more often than not there was maybe 1 or 2 other civils in the airspace (see point 2).

4. Late (and sometimes "unusual") changes to clearances when on Approach/TWR.

Overall, I had "less confidence" in the system when operating IFR under military ATC. Make of that what you will.;)

As I mentioned previously Jabawocky: I'm not taking a swipe at the ATCO's, merely posting my observations over the past decade or so. Once again I reiterate I NEVER had a problem when operating VFR via the lanes.:)

[sms777]

Is that a positive or negative input? So far i have only observed 1 negative, everyone else seem to manage negotiating the "big bad" ADF's. :eek:
Still standing by for the "Man" with his comment :confused:

[RAAFASA]

I can field this one....
A month or so ago I was held for half an hour outside Amberly, I was trying to operate about ten miles to the north of AMB up to 500' above ground. AMB were notified the day before, I was told on the phone half an hour before I took off AMB was not active then as I approached I called anyway and was told to hold. There were two 111's landed after the half hour holding then AMB shut down, I had a transponder with appropriate or allocated code. I was no threat to inbound traffic and was operating 1500' below their path.

10 miles north of AMB puts you on 10 mile final for RWY 15, the most common rwy in use and the only one with ILS. To operate at 500ft AGL in that area, most AMB ATC's would give you a clearance of NA 1500ft AMSL to allow you to avoid terrain and us to use + 1000ft to separate with other acft on QNH. (Can't apply the vert standard between AGL and AMSL) At 9nm on the ILS the descent profile dips below A025.

Without knowing what the weather was like on that day, I'm guessing that the pigs wanted an ILS (either due wx or for currency) or wanted a type of tactical approach - low and fast usually - again either due wx, or for training purposes.

If your area of ops had been elsewhere in the zone, I doubt you would have encountered any delay (there is often fire ant spraying, parachute ops and local photographic work taking place around the zone while mil flying occurs). But being on final puts you in the way.

With a C17 you could easily be given see and avoid (caution lotsa wake turb!) but the pigs moving quickly have no chance of seeing you and by the time you see them, we would have lost sep. So using radar or some form of procedural (vert, you nth of the hwy, them a mile sth etc) sounds like the only option.

Also, it sounds like an out of hours move, which means minimum staff for normal airspace (2 controllers covering 4 frequencies and relevant coord with our brissie neighbours) and using the TWR equip rather than the big screens downstairs. Given that you needed a 10 minute window, based on the pigs estimate I guess the guys on decided to hold you out rather than disturb you during your ops (also, we do get bitten occassionally by acft not being able to manouvre quickly enough to get out of the way when instructed).

Kudos to you for checking the AMB status (as ERSA says - the published hours are just a guide - even to the duty controller sometimes! So always check first!) Unfortunately AMB's published priorities start with mil acft and a couple of pages later get to VFR civil ops. Not my call, just the rules, if the mil guys want exclusive use (as a visiting C130 did a week or so ago, taking over the whole CTR and forcing the AF guys to go the long way round) there's nothing we can do unless you say the magic words (not "please" - declare those emergencies guys!)

As for rules, we recently tried to implement a local procedure so that we wouldn't have to apply a normal sep standard between IFR acft and extremely low level ops (eg fire ant chopper/ power line surveys operating at below pwr line/tree top height).

Because the low level guys are often not able to be seen by the TWR (tress in the way!) and are operating too close to the field to apply either radar or vert, in order to facilitate a dep/arr, we have to get the choppers to either land, go away (to establish a 1nm procedural standard) or climb to a point where they can be visually separated.

We wanted to create a local rule whereby we could just pass traffic (on the grounds that before the IFR acft hits the chopper - he would have already hit the treetops/ pwr lines!) This was rejected by a pilot (most agreed, but there was one dissenting squadron).

Rules and procedures govern everything we do and they (more frequently than incompetence) are the reason why you don't always get what you want. Most of us (particularly those with joint user base experience) try really hard to accomodate civil traffic - after all you have to pay for your fuel! And some of us are more creative than others in the way we apply the rules, but there are some points that just aren't up for negotiation.

Thanks to those who've posted positive feedback (it's rare!) and I've posted this before and I'll post it again - if you ever have any concerns, worries or gripes about the service provided to you - please contact the relevant ATC unit (numbers are in ERSA) and talk to a supervisor. We may be able to explain things to your satisfaction, or you may be able to convince us that we can do better for you next time. But we don't know if you don't tell! Happy flying!

[peuce]

I'm going to try to be as diplomatic as piossible here, but I'll probably fail.

As an observer looking at these responses and looking at comments in previous threads, it seems that those who have major dramas with Military CTA ... tend to do so consistently ...

Anyone doing serious research on this theme would be asking questions like ... " are thse people doing something, or not doing something, that brings them this consistent grief ?"


Maybe it's just coincidence ... maybe not ...

[mustafagander]

Probably because I'm a bit lazy I try to phone the ATCOs the day prior. I ALWAYS call an hour or so before I launch. It almost invariably prevents surprises when I call approaching the boundary. I do, naturally, have the tracks etc. on my plan to route around the zone just in case.

Oh yes for the record, I operate out of YSCN.

Put me down as a satisfied customer. :ok:

[Dick Smith]

I see in the RAAFASA’s post the key to one of the problems. Let’s quote:

We wanted to create a local rule whereby we could just pass traffic (on the grounds that before the IFR acft hits the chopper - he would have already hit the treetops/ pwr lines!) This was rejected by a pilot (most agreed, but there was one dissenting squadron).

I have spoken to many military air traffic controllers about the enlightened procedures which take place in the UK, Canada and the USA, most would like to bring those procedures in, however they tell me that the total resistance to change and concrete mindedness of those in authority stop this from happening.

Here is a classic example, it looks as if the experienced and professional air traffic controllers wanted to bring in a local procedure that would facilitate movement of traffic and make it more similar to what happens overseas and “a pilot" was able to stop this from happening. It reminds me of the situation with the victor lane over a decade ago, where one pilot managed to stop its introduction for nearly two years.

It is so sad that the military don’t send a small team of controllers and pilots overseas to look at how similar air space is controlled. Imagine a review which looked at how these enlightened procedures work overseas and looked at the safety implications and whether we could import some of the ideas to Australia. Generally speaking when I have been held it is obvious that it is because of some archaic procedure designed in the 1950’s and not for any real safety reasons. This has been confirmed by professional air traffic controllers when I have discussed it with them.

[Atlas Shrugged]

Dick,

............nah, why bother..

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

[Dick Smith]

Because the changes will save waste- most important in these times of economic hardship.

[DBTW]

Is that a positive or negative input?

sms777, my "it begins" is simply that the thread will shortly revert to entrenched positions and the discussion Jabawocky is trying to draw out will get hijacked.

Two individuals come up in a rather polite weekend exchange and comment on some trouble they have around Amberly and Willy. The abuse, whilst ever so politely put, has started.

Thanks RAAFSA for a good response. Your plea for openness and discussion about how rules, regulations and procedures are applied around military controlled airspace is well made. Your point that you and many others are simply doing the best you can is appreciated. :ok:

Back to you sms777, you are obviously talking about an occassional military airspace transit clearance? With that in mind, your responses are also in context and respectful:ok:

Having raised the topic with Jabawocky off line, I think the discussion needs to be more about our Australian airspace and how we use it. Hopefully, no-one will argue that we have the best flying conditions in the world? With that accepted, why do we have such draconian rules, regulations and procedures? The "it's all about safety" cry does not stand up to scrutiny. Despite our desire to win at everything, in the sport of life our aviation safety record is at least as likely to relate to excellent flying conditions as it does to rules, regulations and procedures.

We have several large volumes of rules and regulations applying to pilot's/airspace users committing aviation in Australia.

My point is that the system has become over complicated.

This complication does not make aviation safer or easier. The application of the rules of the air should be something inherently simple and easy to remember.

The message is simple. Several other countries (by no means all) apply their rules and regulations in a way that is much more inclusive of all airpace users than we do in Australia. Our ATC, both civil and military, may well be doing the best they can, but we still need an unemotive debate about airspace management without everyone falling on their knives?

This is not about how easy it is to fly up a transit lane through the Willy restricted area, or how long you may or may not be held whilst an F111 does a tactical join at Amberly. It is about why the best radar operators in the country controlling the most manoeuvrable aircraft in the country need exlusive use of such a large chunk of airspace? No-one seems to want to take responsibility for look out anymore, or for the provision of such services as flight and radar information, or radar advisory traffic avoidance.

Up and down the east coast of Australia in particular we have superb radar coverage. Why don't radar agencies simply provide information or advisory services based on verbal agreements with the pilots whether inside or outside controlled airspace. I have occassionally seen and heard it done west of Sydney, so it must be possible. The ATC obligation to actual separation could be less, but all pilots would receive better information and a broader picture instead of just the few who actually want to be controlled.

A few revised procedures, and a little less misplaced anxiety would make for a lot more freedom of the air. There is a huge amount to discuss. Maybe our separation standards are too high? Maybe most unarmed aerial combat training could be taken out of a restricted area and get done OCTA (like they do in the UK)? Maybe RPT could be more constrained within specific narrow airways for their protection and the size of their receiving airport control zones could be shrunk (like they do in Europe)?

All just thoughts based on my point that our system has become over complicated. I am not saying anyone else is necessarily better, just that we could do what we want better because we have the best flying conditions in the world. Personally, I think the restricted areas and controlled airspace in Australia are way bigger than they really need to be, especially up the eastern seaboard.

[No Further Requirements]

One thing to remember is that it's not '1950's procedures' that can cause delays, it is that restricted airspace is Class C and therefore separation as per the rule book apply. No getting around it with funky copied procedures from different countries. The definition of Class C, or a reclassification, would have to change first. You can't work backwards on this one.

Cheers,

NFR.

[Dick Smith]

No Further Requirements,

You state:
“it is that restricted airspace is Class C and therefore separation as per the rule book apply.”

The point I have been making for over a decade. The Australian procedures in Class C are based on something set in 1950 – probably before radar even existed.

In North America, not just the USA but also in Canada, the procedures in Class C are quite different to what we use here. Of course, it will be claimed that ours are “ICAO”. In that case, the US and Canada provide a different service to that required by ICAO. I once heard that the FAA was quite proud to have more notified differences to ICAO than virtually any other country in the world. Many aviators in the USA see ICAO as some form of system designed for third world countries such as Africa and not an organisation that should be followed where you need to allocate your safety dollars most effectively.

[No Further Requirements]

Dick, are you saying that the USA does things their own way to suit their unique circumstances and doesn't follow other country's procedures? Hmmmmm.....

I still don't accept that by providing specific example of people getting delayed and going on about 'it's the controllers making it difficult - they won't change their practices' helps anyone.

Imagine you bought a 747, and then circled around a yelling at the marshaller at a heliport to hurry up and provide a landing area for your jet. I'm sure he'd love to have a 10,000ft runway, but there isn't one yet and yelling at the marshaller is not going to achieve anything.

Same with this - controllers are not opposed to change. What we are opposed to is quickly implemented changes without proper resources which jeopardises our ability to safely do our job. You can't just reclassify all the airspace to a lower level without first providing the equipment, and more importantly, the people, to do the job.

Dick - what is different in Class C in North America versus Australia? I am genuinely interested.

Cheers,

NFR.

[Dick Smith]

'Target Resolution" and "Green in Between" for a start.

[No Further Requirements]

Already used in Australia for opposite direction definite passing.

Under what circumstances are there procedures used and what is the standard? Between which categories of aircraft?

[Dick Smith]

Surely you must know the answer to this.

The main point is that by harmonising with the North American practice, where our radar will allow, there will be less holding and diversion for VFR traffic.

[No Further Requirements]

If I knew Dick I would not be asking. I'd like you to tell me. You can't just throw a few phrases in you have heard from the States without knowing where and when they can be applied.

I'm all for change if it is an improvement and it can be implemented safely and within a framework of documented regulations. You can't just make up rules, like the US way of vectoring and separating IFR traffic in Class G. Bastardising any system is setting yourself up for failure.

[sms777]

Gentleman!
I do admit that i am an occassional military airspace user and i am sure it is us that Jabawocky targeted with his post. I have been in the game for 20 years now and even as a student pilot i have never encountered any difficulties obtaining clearence to transit.
Do you know why?...
Because i respect the system that has been working for me, i have nice manners, fly by the book and most importantly.... I do not rock the boat!...
Unlike certain individuals comparing our system with UK/USA and constantly on the forum complaining because get held up for obvious reasons.
I do not give a rats @ss about the UK/US system because i am an Australian pilot flying in Australian airspace and like many others proven in their previous posts...it has been working for us.
I know Mr Smith would like to change all that overnight and with all respect it is not going to happen without compromising safety


:ok:

[DBTW]

sms777

Earlier I said it begins

In my explanation to you I talked about hijackers and now you are doing it with emotive talk.

Because i respect the system that has been working for me, i have nice manners, fly by the book and most importantly.... I do not rock the boat!...

Good for you:ok:

I think Jabawocky was right to get the conversation going. You have a view everything is going well, others don't.

I do not give a rats @ss about the UK/US system because i am an Australian pilot flying in Australian airspace and like many others proven in their previous posts...it has been working for us.

Whilst a very honest perspective, you are clearly quite blinkered and you leave us in no doubt that you are uncomfortable with the thought things might change.

In my experience, fear of change and quiet complacency are amongst the most dangerous of traits for a pilot to admit to, especially when voiced in the name of safety. You may have other issues to bring up so killing the discussion now serves no purpose. Please may you enjoy your occasional military airspace transits, but let the conversation continue without inflamatory comment.

[Jabawocky]

DBTW has me thinking here.

I just looked at my Flight Planning software and at a map of Oz with all the R space drawn in.

Crikey there is a lot of real estate covered. Sure some is out to sea and to FL600 but there is a lot of low level and the most cluttered is around Sydney.

I think he has a point about size of MIL airspace. Now I gather nobody complains much about Woomera (well not the mods these days:E).

Do those who don't really have any issues and posted above think it could be improved, sizes heights or geographical points freed up for light GA to use with less restriction?

Has anyone done a study on this? Maybe the MIL zones could be improved also at the same time. Might have multiple benefits.

J:ok:

[RAAFASA]

Sorry folks, I know my last post was way too long, but just want to clarify the following response:
Quote: (mine)

We wanted to create a local rule whereby we could just pass traffic (on the grounds that before the IFR acft hits the chopper - he would have already hit the treetops/ pwr lines!) This was rejected by a pilot (most agreed, but there was one dissenting squadron).
(response to above) I have spoken to many military air traffic controllers about the enlightened procedures which take place in the UK, Canada and the USA, most would like to bring those procedures in, however they tell me that the total resistance to change and concrete mindedness of those in authority stop this from happening.

Just wanted to point out that it was not "those in authority" in the military that rejected the reduced sep agreement. Management both at base and wing level supported it. It was just a pilot who felt that safety would be compromised if he was afforded less than full IFR sep.

As he was the only dissenter, I'm still hoping to talk him round and prove my point that he is in more danger from the trees than the chopper, but, at the end of the day, he's the one in the danger zone and I'm in the comfy chair providing a service - so he wins. (And btw it wasn't one of the AMB based squadrons dissenting, they were quite supportive).

Back to the thread topic, my experience has been that VFR transits through mil airspace (DN, TL, RIC, AMB) are facilitated wherever possible with minimum disruption. We do have to prioritise IAW local procedures and some mil flying activity requires exclusive use (not normal training, IAPPs etc - but the tactical stuff) because, frankly, the pilot workload is high enough without them having to "see or be hit" or comply with further restrictions to avoid an incident.

I was lucky enough to get a jolly in a hornet a couple of years ago ( went supersonic, practiced avoiding and engaging manouvres and went low level - 250ft - "croc spotting") and it really opened my eyes to the physical and mental demands the pilots face. I could barely keep up with instructions being issued and I didn't have to also keep us airborne at the same time! So trust me, some times, you just have to go around, over, under or wait to let these guys learn/practise their thing.:)

[Lodown]

Never had a problem with Willy airspace. Got held once when Kevin Rudd was a teenager, but that was it. The Gloucester route is only for good weather days, but then the entire section over land is only good in good weather. If the weather is bad on the coast, via Scone is the only way to go north.

The US has been quoted many times. Try flying over the islands west of LA and in the restricted area near Yuma, AZ.

[Feather #3]

If we discount recovery of a MayDay aircraft, since 1965 I've rarely had a problem transiting Willy. However, the consistent theme would appear to be that they do Mil ATCO training there and if one has a hassle, it's usually from one who sounds like it's his first day on the job. You get the greatest flexibility at places like AMB and TN where the TWR ATCO is usually both TWR and APP rated with a radar display [and may be doing both jobs.]

Otherwise, it's fine.

G'day ;)

[peuce]

Sorry, but I couldn't let this one go un-challenged. In fact, I nearly fell off my bean bag when I read it ...

Dick said:

"Many aviators in the USA see ICAO as some form of system designed for third world countries such as Africa and not an organisation that should be followed where you need to allocate your safety dollars most effectively."

What the ... ? But Dick, you made us change to "Alphabet Airspace" to harmonise with ICAO !!!! Now you're telling us it was all hokum :ugh:

[Jabawocky]

Fetaher #3

Thanks for a really good post, the training of ATCO's at Willy had never crossed my mind.

Now that I think of it, the only knockbacks of service I have ever had were quite obvious some poor bloke was being trained and under immense pressure and busy workload (BNE CEN out of TL).

The lady that was being trained at Maroochydore a year or two ago was another and she seemed to get up to speed rather well.

So maybe this is a good case for not training at Willytown, that is throwing them in the deep end. Is this where they get trained from woooo to gooo, or do they start out somewhere quiet?

J:ok:

[scran]

Jabawocky - sorry, but they don't just "train" ATCO's at Williamtown.

On The Job Training (OJT) occurs at every location you mentioned - Willy, AMB, TN, Pearce etc

[Dick Smith]

We have actually come quite a long way, I remember in 1979 if you wanted to get a clearance for a VFR helicopter to transit the Richmond control zone you would actually have to phone first on a land line for approval.

One day I was flying my aircraft and decided to divert to John Singleton’s horse stud, which was on the Nepean River just inside the Richmond zone. I called up the tower and asked if I could have a clearance and explained that this was a flight plan change. The controller explained that there was simply no way he could give the clearance by radio and that I would have to telephone. I then said, “well do you object if I land here at a homestead on the other side of the Nepean River and phone from there”, he said “no”, duly I made the phone call and got the clearance to fly in. I then managed to purchase one of the first brief case sized “007” mobile phones and put it in the helicopter, I was then able to phone up by telephone to get a clearance through the zone. Within months they realised I had outfoxed them and decided that you could actually call by radio in future to get a clearance. At last we were moving into the 19th Century.

[Jabawocky]

Thanks scran :ok:

[Lodown]

One of the perceived issues in dealing with the military is that when everything is peaceful, military activities appear wasteful. In times of war, they are invaluable. In my mind, the RAAF deserves every bit of Williamtown and neighbouring airspace and I'm content to put up with the very, very isolated inconvenience for the knowledge of having a highly trained and very capable air force at the ready.

Dick, do you feel it necessary to "outfox" everyone? Is it all part of some big competition with you to see who's the best or who has the most? I wouldn't have thought making a phone call was in any way combative, but what would I know. It seems like all that had to be done was for the controllers/regulators to be shown that incumbent laws were outdated (as is occurring more and more with advances in technology) and they were content to change. In many cases, the people doing the job know that the pertinent laws are outdated. They are just waiting for the prod to motivate the change.

[sms777]

I am not trying to hijack your thread...(it is becoming your thread is not it?)
Jaba asked a simple and valid question and like i said earlier only certain individuals having difficulties transiting through Military Zones and these individuals screaming about instant changes soon as they become inconvenienced.
I am not afraid or against any changes as long as they are implemented gradually, educated correctly and in the benefit of the aviation community.
If you want to bring in rules from the US than first prove that it will work in Australia and it will be better than the current ones...
I do agree that there are way too many oversized military airspace in the country but it is a big country and it is only really incovenience on the east cost due to higher volume of civil traffic.
To get back on the thread....
I never had problems transiting through ADF's VFR or IFR because i follow rules...current ones...that is.

:ok:

[Dick Smith]

No Further Requirements, in relation to “green in between” and “target resolution” you state:

Under what circumstances are these procedures used and what is the standard? Between which categories of aircraft?

Looking at the document produced by CASA called “Provision of reduced separation minima between VFR and IFR aircraft”, it appears that in the USA, in Class C airspace there are no limitations for target resolution in relation to the aircraft category.

For Class B, target resolution can be used for “aircraft which weigh 19,000 pounds or less.” It says later (re Class B) that aircraft “which weigh more than 19,000 pounds and turbojets” are separated by 1.5 miles of lateral separation, or 500 feet vertical separation, or visual separation.

[peuce]

Dick,

Unfortunately, any reduction in separation standards would make the Radar Scope Scale issue ... even more of a problem ... and would result in your scenario becoming even less likely to come to fruition.

[Jabawocky]

Folks,
Thanks for a very productive and worthwhile thread so far.

Aside from redesigning airspace seperation standards and other issues that creep into these threads, is there anyone else interested in being involved in having discussions with those responsible about making some proactive changes around MIL controlled fields. If so PM me.

Seems to me that Willy might be one to look at closer, but maybe identify which need some and which do not.

Maybe Dick or someone here could open the doors for a few of us to put a case forward to those who can make change happen. I am not qualified or well connected enough to do it but I am sure some here will be.
J:ok:

OK Tid.... gotya. :ok:

[ForGreaterSafety]

Jaba,
Not sure such discussions would result in much because the military operate to the same standards as the civvies. Although it seems to me (I am now a civvie controller having been a military controller in a few of the areas mentioned in this thread) the military stick to the rules far more rigidly. They are far less likely to use the (never hit in a pink fit standard).

Maybe I'm way off beam.

Cheers
FGS

[nomorecatering]

I cant remember having any problem in 20 years getting through willy, Richmnd or Nowra zones.


Dick Smith does have some valid points as does the others. brings back the memory of the old joke about the instruction manual for a hammer writen by 2 different groups. The professionals manual hd 2 instrucions. 1 Hit nail. 2 Dont hit thumb. The beuracrats manual was over 200 pages.

[Super Cecil]

RAAFASA, the F111's were coming in from the east. I was coming from the north west to the north, I was told to track to the south of AMB and hold at Rosebank, I think (I can't be bothered looking it up at the moment). The F111's then came from the east to about two miles north of AMB, did a beat up (Is that what you call a "Tactical" approach?) then broke and did a less than two mile circuit. My positiom at 10 miles north would have in no way clashed with them. It was cavok. My working position at ten miles north and below five hundred agl would have been further away than the point they told me to hold. It doesn't make sense but military airspace is like CASA, it doesn't have to, tough titty.

[Jabawocky]

Not sure I get your point there FGS.

I do not think seperation standards or other standards need to change at all. More likley the number of and sizes and shapes of the MIL CTA.

I have had some info via PM's that have come from retired fighter pilots making suggestions that might help. Maybe you can help too. I can not take this all the way but I am interested in collecting a few positive minded folk who can.

It may be a matter of changing a few shapes and the step heights just a bit and fewer zones, maybe joining up some i.e R111A,B,C being just R111 (just a numerical example).

I am surprised there have been no students and newbies post their honest thoughts here. If there are some reading this, speak up and don't be afraid to say something dumb..... I do enough of that for all of you! :ooh:

J:ok:

[ForGreaterSafety]

Oh, OK I see. Some change to dimensions and designations could help in some circumstances. Might be worth chasing up. I know there are some mighty big ones (eg: Townsville Restricted areas) that are rarely used to the full area and since they have radar coverage there some scaling down of the R area may be achievable. I think that this is an altogether different argument than entering military C class areas. These aircraft would be treated no differently than in any other C class environment. Maybe some confusion could result with a lot of D class around as well.

Cheers
FGS

[RAAFASA]

RAAFASA, the F111's were coming in from the east. I was coming from the north west to the north, I was told to track to the south of AMB and hold at Rosebank, I think (I can't be bothered looking it up at the moment). The F111's then came from the east to about two miles north of AMB, did a beat up (Is that what you call a "Tactical" approach?) then broke and did a less than two mile circuit. My positiom at 10 miles north would have in no way clashed with them. It was cavok. My working position at ten miles north and below five hundred agl would have been further away than the point they told me to hold. It doesn't make sense but military airspace is like CASA, it doesn't have to, tough titty.

Thanks SuperCecil. Holding at Rosewood (you were so close:)) is commonly used as it provides a procedural standard in case radar sep is not suitable (low level, intermittent returns etc).

It also gives tower a fighting chance of being able to sight acft (through binos unless you're a C17, of course) to minimise the sep standard required. If you and the piggies were the only acft in the airspace at the time, it does sound like your ops would have worked. Again, all I can say is that the pigs may have requested more airspace than they actually used, or the controllers may have misunderstood their, or your, request and erred on the side of safety.

If it was recent, give me a date and time and I'll pull the audio and radar tapes and have a more exact look at it. If it was a while ago the tapes will be gone but next time something like this happens to you just give us a call on the next working day and we will be able to view the tapes and either justify the controllers actions or counsel them to ensure a better service next time. Cheers.

[No Further Requirements]

....and that's what it's all about - teamwork. No one is out to get one another (I think). This thread is a very good one indeed.

On the subject of R areas and numbering, I think they are split up for ease of assigning them as operating areas for aircraft inside them.

Dick - Thanks for the info re 'green between'. On a lot of current sectors, that would be 5NM anyway by the time you got the screen resolution. Smaller sectors would help, and that means more people. Not going to happen for a while I would say.

Cheers,

NFR.