RAAF to Extend ATC hours at YWLM

[OZBUSDRIVER]

FAIRFAX LOCAL NEWS. RAAF to extend ATC at YWLM (http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/general/raaf-to-extend-air-traffic-control-at-williamtown-airport/1509009.aspx)

This little snipet showed up this morning.

DEFENCE-operated air traffic control services at Newcastle Airport will be extended to include weekends, holidays and the Defence Christmas break, under changes planned by the Chief of Air Force.

Under the plans, the RAAF would increase its staff to enable it to provide its air traffic control service 16 hours a day, seven days, throughout the year.

A Defence spokeswoman said extension of the service was the main recommendation of the recent confidential RAAF review of Williamtown air traffic control arrangements.

Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Mark Binskin has endorsed the move and the Federal Government has been advised of his intention to seek the necessary extra resources.

The expense has not been determined. The cost of any services provided beyond the military's needs would be passed on to the airport, which would in turn pass it on to the industry.

But the changes are not expected to be ready before late 2010, missing the next month-long defence operational standby at the end of the year.

Aviator Dick Smith criticised the time line and said the changes should be implemented immediately.

"If a report has found the full [air traffic control] service is needed, then it is needed now," Mr Smith, a former chief of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, said.

Defence said it would have to recruit and train the extra air traffic controllers and technicians.

Last year, representatives told the Civil Aviation Safety Authority that Defence was experiencing a shortage of controllers.

The RAAF provides an air traffic control service from 8am to 10pm Monday to Thursday and 8am to 4pm Friday. It operates a certified air ground radio service from 4pm to 10pm on Friday and 10am to 7pm on weekends and public holidays.

Under the changes, air traffic control would be provided from 6am to 10pm each day, including public holidays.

The spokeswoman said the changes would deliver certainty for the RAAF and the airport.

"Additionally, [Air Marshal Binskin] is positioning [the] air force for future requirements," she said.

The defence review followed Mr Smith's safety concerns about a proposal for the airport to operate without a radar display and air traffic controllers over the recent Christmas holidays while RAAF members were on leave.

The safety authority approved the plan for the airport to run its own radio service but Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon overturned the decision at the last minute and ordered the RAAF to supply the radio service to ensure public confidence.

Defence declined to release its review to The Herald, citing confidential information in it.

The spokeswoman said the review confirmed the safety authority's findings that a radio service, including those arrangements in place in the last RAAF operational standby, were safe.

Those arrangements would apply again during the standby this year, when it was likely the radar display would again undergo maintenance, she said.

Newcastle Airport aviation services manager Graham Giddey said the review was further proof the airport operated safely, despite Mr Smith's criticisms.

Mr Giddey said the changes would enhance services as the airport expanded.

[Mr.Buzzy]

Happy days!

[Lookleft]

Thats one air traffic black spot filled in and Avalon is also getting a better ATC presence. Now all we need is an acknowledgement that RPT and GA traffic shouldn't be self-separating in CTAFs and the system would be a whole lot safer.

[No Further Requirements]

So we need a tower at Merimbula? I'll put my hand up!

[Chadzat]

ow all we need is an acknowledgement that RPT and GA traffic shouldn't be self-separating in CTAFs

Are you seriously implying that a saab/dash crew can't safely separate themselves from other traffic at CTAF's? Or are you talking about JET RPT?

I don't want to get off topic but that statement seems a little silly.

[Lookleft]

Didn't think that I needed to be that obvious considering that I included Avalon in the post but yes jet RPT. For those who are getting their flame throwers ready please indicate whether you have flown an RPT jet into a CTAF(R).

[scran]

Sounds like progress. :ok:




We worked those airfield hours (6AM-10PM) Mon-Fri when I was first posted to Williamtown as an ATC in 1976....................:eek:

Weekends were slightly different - but a highlight was working 0600 till about 1400 on Staurdays, then going back to open up from 1900 to 2030 to work the evening Friendship arrival.

[Aussie]

That means more ATC recruitment in the near future then? Good to hear they are filling the gaps.

[No Further Requirements]

Or will there be more APS jobs going? Either jobs at Willy for this extension, or jobs elsewhere to release blue-suiters to come to Willy? Anyone got the goss?

[whymefly]

I guessed that this may be the eventual decision. It shows that there is some common sense out there after all. Some of the alternatives were not as practical.
Dick, please consider the RNZAF guys, you can't just get controllers to appear from nowhere, and don't you have a problem with the Willy controllers anyway?
Here's hoping this is the start of a wave of improvements.

[Fredbear]

Whymefly
I didn't realise that Dick was now running ADF recruiting :confused:?

[Aussie]

What isnt dick trying to run... sticks his nose in everywhere :eek:

[Jabawocky]

Lookleft

Maybe the many CTAF's that have Jet RPT do not need towers, but more the point they need TCAS they can rely on to suppliment the radio aided pilot seperation.

Ohhhhh........ hang on, that would mean that CTAF R's should then have a MANDATORY transponder requirement.

Would that make you happy? It would do me!

J:ok:

[Howard Hughes]

Hand Willy and Richmond over to the civilians and pack the RAAF off to Scherger (sp) and Curtin! Give the RAAF controllers based there, the option of switching over to the civvy street no questions asked.

Build some parallel runways at both and there will be more than enough capacity for the Sydney basin for some time to come.:eek:

Of course there would be no votes in that, but think of the jobs it would create...:ok:

[Aussie]

Yeah im sure the RAAF guys would love to move from YSRI and YWLM to scherger and Curtin!!!! Watch out, incoming! :}

[Jabawocky]

Howie....:D

Best post I have seen in ages!

That would be a far better use of available assets. The Sydney region needs the space, and Scherger is an expensive once in a blue moon base.

But who would actually make it happen? And as for folk in the forces, they have that job on the understanding that they serve where ever they are sent. Too bad. Weipa is not all that bad. Good fishing!

[Pera]

I'm sure the RAAF would be happy to make Curtin a joint user base if you are running out of room. Fast train to Sydney!

[Like This - Do That]

And as for folk in the forces, they have that job on the understanding that they serve where ever they are sent. Too bad.

Geee ... too bad ... guess that's why people either don't join or often leave as soon as their ROSO is complete. Bugger the tax payer! Thanks for the training!

Tell ya what, we'll move Parliament to Weipa, and see how MP retention goes ...

[Dick Smith]

I have never had a problem with the Willy ATC's- always found them fantastic.

My problem is with their superiors in Canberra who are so incompetent that they have never been able to introduce modern procedures and separation standards so that the controllers are allowed to provide an efficient service.

Probably the same type of Canberra people that lost one billion of taxpayers money on the seasprites!

[Jabawocky]

Another great idea........and the RAAF boys will be happy to protect them too! Weipa will be a great boom town then! :}

And it seems like the bulk of the work is training, so apart from the trainers, the rest will move on anyway from Willy. Of course the trainers would need to be content.

Or how about they build a whole new base not so "remote" and free up willy for the public. Rudd and Swan would love to sell that to MacBank!:eek:

[Howabout]

Dick,

I know that your heart's in the right place, but the accusation that people are using outmoded , or inefficient, practices doesn't ring quite true. On the one hand you accuse the military of dated procedures, but on the other (and I suspect you know this) the procedures and standards are identical to those that Airsercvices use and CASA approves.

Unless my mate was lying to me, he pointed me in the direction of the Manual of Air Traffic Services, which both organisations use. In short, the stuff that's in there is, apparently, applied equally by both organisations.

So, how can you accuse the military guys of using inefficient procedures, and their superiors of being incompetent, when they are complying with CASA mandated standards?

[Barry Bernoulli]

Howabout you put two guys in an F1 car on a race circuit. Will they both be able to achieve the same lap times? That will depend upon their respective experience, intuition, training, skill and dedication.

The Manual is the vehicle. Performance is still dependant on the driver, and the driver's support team.

[Pera]

you put two guys in an F1 car on a race circuit.

I assume you're putting them on two totally different race circuits with different airspace, SI's, facilities, systems, support, shifts, and then comparing them.

Great analogy... not.

[Barry Bernoulli]

Pera,

Different "SI's, facilities, systems, support, shifts" would surely produce different results at identical airfields with identical airspace, would it not?

[Pera]

I'm sure the result would be a lot closer than your first analogy.

The point that Howabout was making is that all ATC agencies in Australia use the same (completely up to date) rules.

[QSK?]

http://Probably the same type of Canberra people that lost one billion of taxpayers money on the seasprites!

Probably also the same type of people that wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer's money on useless airspace "reform".

[flighthappens]

JABAWOCKY

FIFY
Or how about they build a whole new airport not so "remote" and free up willy for the military. As it has been for ~60years

[Howabout]

Thanks Pera, that was precisely my point. However, as the old adage says, 'never let the facts get in the way of a good story.'

As for the Seasprites, QSK?, I don't see the connection. The connotation is one which says every single person in the military who has a position of authority is incompetent. Do you really believe that?

And to be fair, I don't think it was the military who:

wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer's money on useless airspace reform.I think you might want to look in another direction on that one.

[Dick Smith]

QSK The AMATS Airspace reforms were not useless and no money was wasted.

The savings have been over 1 billion dollars and now in all radar covered airspace you now can actually talk to a person who has a radar screen.

The NAS reforms have never been completed- due to ignorance and the fear of actually asking advice and copying something that may be better.

The money has been wasted by the dopes who reversed the changes before they were complete. Karma will get them.

But when a heavy hits a mountain in the Proserpine approach because no radar service was being offered we will move foward again.

Just like BK- resist all change until we kill a few people!

[Dick Smith]

Howabout, I understand the answer is simple. Airservices claim they cannot offer “green in between” or “target resolution” because all of their radars use multi radar tracking.

That's why they have no procedures for this.

In the case of Williamtown,I am told that the terminal radar used for aircraft in close does not use multi radar tracking. Therefore, if the powers that be decided to follow the proven US civilian and military procedures of “green in between” and “target resolution” they would be able to operate aircraft more efficiently without needless holding.

Those are the facts!

[Condition lever]

There are no "heavys" going into Proserpine.

[whymefly]

Dick,

Your comment, Airservices claim they cannot use "green between".

I am no longer in Australia, but used to work on the sectors surrounding WLM, and the RAAF use the same separation standards as ASA. The "green between" is used by both, BUT only when the aircraft are opposite direction and have physically passed opposite each other, ie one above the other, this correlates to the procedural "mutually sighted visual pass of traffic". If the aircraft don't do this, then either 3 or 5 nm is required.
The 3 vs 5 miles is the enroute vs approach radar sep standard.

WMF

[Dick Smith]

Why, the green in between I am talking about is totally different. I suggest you talk to a US Controller.

[MrApproach]

Funny how the Willy decision came close on the heels of reports that the RAAF were being pressured to combine their ATC with the civilians. Watch how the plan fades away once they have won that battle! Generals are politicians too.

Howard Hughes is of course right on the money. There is no reason why Richmond needs to be a RAAF base, there is plenty of room at Amberley and that would save Defence truckloads of money in running and admin costs. Richmond has always been the best choice and sooner or later it will happen. By that I mean KSA will be closed and Richmond will become Sydney International. There is nothing wrong with Sydney KSA except noise sharing, an 80 movements an hour cap and the curfew. Parallels or triples at Richmond will fix Sydney for the next 50 years and a maglev train will have you downtown faster than it can be presently done in a taxi.

As for the other story;
1) Combine the two national ANSPs (Military and Civil)
2) RAAF bases to be staffed by civil ATCs who become reservists for their posting period (needs a no industrial action clause while in uniform);
3) Maintain a cadre of civil ATCs who are trained in battlespace techniques and who can put on the uniform and agree to serve where they are sent (fabulous career opportunity for mobile individuals);
4) Replace all airspace outside Class ABC with E, reserve D for airports with sufficient circuit movements to need a tower (BK, JK, and MB. PF/AF Maybe)
5) E airspace to include airport approaches (NDB/DME, VOR/DME, GBAS/ILS/MLS) controlled from ATC Centre (Airports such as Avalon, Albury, Hamilton island, etc do not need a Runway/Taxiway/Circuit area service (Tower) they need an approach service. Caveat there on military airports, they probably need local ATC, a combined TWR/Radar APP);
6) G airspace from ground level to 2000 feet AGL.

Sorry guys the heretics are still out here, I'd better stop I can feel the incoming!

[Dick Smith]

Wash your mouth out! It sounds a little to close to NAS

[Here to Help]

As reported in the original post is WLM still to be controlled by the RAAF in the Christmas break and weekend, or is it going to be the TRA procedures used last break?

[MrApproach]

Anyone heard of a report from consultants on the WLM airspace being kept secret by CASA? If it exists I'll bet the questions it raises go much further than WLM. When you think of it, without a RAAF presence WLM is just another airport under controlled airspace. An airspace structure recommended there should be introduced at all similar airports.We have to stop defying common sense sooner or alter.