Heathrow changed to Class D to save the industry money,Williamtown what's happening?

[Dick Smith]

Not many know but Heathrow Airport – one of the airports with the highest traffic levels in the world has now changed its low level terminal airspace to Class D.

I spoke to one of the air traffic controllers and he told me, “Dick, it’s all about empowering air traffic controllers so we can get VFR traffic – mostly helicopters through the area without unnecessary delays.”

I explained how in Australia, the military controllers at Williamtown were totally opposed to a CASA proposal that Williamtown be Class D because the controllers thought they were being down-graded. He said, “That’s pathetically childish. With Class D a controller can still hold a VFR aircraft outside the zone if required for safety reasons however the most controllers realise this is going to cost money so they don’t hold VFR aircraft unless necessary for safety”

Now I wonder, if they can do it at Heathrow wouldn’t you think they could do it at Williamtown? Instead of having to hold aircraft for up to 30 minutes holding out over the ocean, quite often with young families on board, knowing if there is an engine failure it’s most likely everyone will drown.

Wouldn’t you think they would be happy to follow Heathrow and put in some modern airspace so the good controllers could simply give traffic information when it was safe to do so and allow VFR aircraft to fly along the beach at 500’?

[AerocatS2A]

Dick. 30 seconds googling revealed that Heathrow was changed to Class D because Class A had been redefined such that it excluded VFR and special VFR.

[fujii]

Looking at the map, if the Heathrow concept were adopted at Williamtown, the Inner Area which protects the RWY centrelines would extend well over the water and not help coastal aircraft.

The following NATS restrictions also apply:

4. Access to the airspace immediately around Heathrow Airport – referred to as the ‘Inner Area’ – will be restricted via PPR (Prior Permission Required) by telephone. Unless you really need to fly inside the ‘Inner Area’, you should plan to route around it.

5. The London CTR will be a Transponder Mandatory Zone (TMZ) with Mode S required.

It appears that if Williamtown did implement similar procedures, an inner area would be more restrictive than the current Class C zone and both the coastal and overhead routes would be unavailable. With the nature of Williamtown operations, telephone approval probably wouldn't work either. Then there is the cost of a Mode S transponder.

[AerocatS2A]

Now I wonder, if they can do it at Heathrow wouldn’t you think they could do it at Williamtown? Instead of having to hold aircraft for up to 30 minutes holding out over the ocean, quite often with young families on board, knowing if there is an engine failure it’s most likely everyone will drown.



All I see when I read the above is that you are attempting to manipulate your audience by using emotive language. Nobody likes to feel manipulated. You might find a lot more support here if you stopped insulting our intelligence with political scare campaign style tactics.

[Dick Smith]

. I am trying to prevent unnecessary fatalities.

Please don't judge me on what you would do under similar circumstances .

There is a real risk . When small single engined aircraft are held orbiting over the ocean at Anna Bay it's clear that an engine failure would likely result in a ditching.

[AerocatS2A]

So why not just say that? Why introduce the emotive language? it just gets in the way of the point you are trying to make.

[Lookleft]

Instead of having to hold aircraft for up to 30 minutes holding out over the ocean, quite often with young families on board, knowing if there is an engine failure it’s most likely everyone will drown.

Where is the evidence that the aircraft holding are "quite often with young families on board"

According to you Dick and a lot of others GA is dead ,apparently that's why you are selling your Citation. If that is the case, and I have no evidence to prove otherwise, then the chances of an aircraft holding for 30 minutes with a young family are next to nothing. I think most families with young children are simply too busy working and trying to pay off a mortgage to have the disposable income to afford to fly a light aircraft. From where I sit most young families with children fly up and down the coast squashed up in the fuselage of Tiger or Jetstar. As Aerocat, stated take your emotive language out of your posts and also do your research as others have done.

[no_one]

What we need is a system based on sound reason and logic not based on emotional reaction and fear. In this sense Dick is as bad as his opponents, however...

In the USA they don't teach you how to fly through Williamtown or transit Avalon or land at Bankstown. They teach you how to deal with each of the different classes airspace. This then means that every bit of class C(or D) airspace is exactly like the other in what you have to do, who you have to talk to and how and if you will get access. Even the Class B zones the have are very similar and it doesn't take long to work out the minor differences. This consistency is what we should aspire to.

Also in the USA they have clear logic to their airspace. For instance you never find a class D tower with radar in the tower. If the tower has access to radar then the airspace will be class C, this is per the definition. This simple logic helps in making decisions about upgrading and downgrading airspace classes as traffic volumes change. If an airport becomes busy enough to warrant radar then it becomes class C. If the radar becomes unserviceable and there isn't the traffic to justify upgrade/replacement then the airspace becomes class D. We should aspire to this too.

Generally, the FAA has allocated its resources to areas where there is the greatest risk. The greatest risk of collision is in close to the airport and at lower levels and hence this is where they control VFR traffic and further away or directly overhead they do not. Directly overhead a regional airport, 6000 feet above is a location that has a very low collision risk and so they do not bother to control this area. For some reason in Australia we do. Why do we have class C at say Tamworth that goes all the way to the base of the class A? Unless you ave unlimited resources you need to focus your efforts on where they will do the greatest good. This is a principle we should also aspire to.

[Maggie Island]

I explained how in Australia, the military controllers at Williamtown were totally opposed to a CASA proposal that Williamtown be Class D because the controllers thought they were being down-graded. He said, “That’s pathetically childish. With Class D a controller can still hold a VFR aircraft outside the zone if required for safety reasons however the most controllers realise this is going to cost money so they don’t hold VFR aircraft unless necessary for safety”

Now I wonder, if they can do it at Heathrow wouldn’t you think they could do it at Williamtown? Instead of having to hold aircraft for up to 30 minutes [insert dramatic think of the children dribble]

Who on Earth said they were opposed to Class D at WLM? Are you sure they were in the military Dick - I doubt any military operators would be opposed to changing the service provided. I could think of a few RPT operators (aka the reason a young family is at an imminent risk of drowning at Anna Bay) who would have a thing or two to say about it however...

[Capn Bloggs]

If the tower has access to radar then the airspace will be class C, this is per the definition.
NO IT ISN'T. It's just the way the yanks, and Dick, do it.

[Tinstaafl]

Interestingly, I can fly over Orlando, Tampa, Miami etc at >10'000 VFR without talking to anyone. No issues, no worries.

Now that I live & fly in the US, in retrospect the Oz system is ludicrous.

[no_one]

Captain Bloggs, no need to shout.

I obviously wasn't making myself clear that I was talking about the system in the USA and its definitions and not the system in use in Australia. I have included the definitions from the FAA AIM below but have added the underlining.


FAA AIM:

3−2−4. Class C Airspace
a. Definition. Generally, that airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation (charted in MSL) surrounding those airports that have an operational control tower, are serviced by a radar approach control, and that have a certain number of IFR operations or passenger enplanements. Although the configuration of each Class C airspace area is individually tailored, the airspace usually consists of a 5 NM radius core surface area that extends from the surface up to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation, and a 10 NM radius shelf area that extends no lower than 1,200 feet up to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation

3−2−5. Class D Airspace
a. Definition. Generally, that airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet above the airport elevation (charted in MSL) surrounding those airports that have an operational control tower. The configuration of each Class D airspace area is individually tailored and when instrument procedures are published, the airspace will normally be designed to contain the procedures.

[Capn Bloggs]

I'll shout when I get tired of reading the diatribes of the Yank sympathisers, No one.

AS I said...
It's just the way the yanks do it

There is no reason why Class C has to be radar-driven, and just because the yanks do it that way is irrelevant. There are things that the yanks do which are just plain stupid; that doesn't mean we have to follow.

[The name is Porter]

You can fly over the top of Chicago at 10,000 ft without a 'clearance' and not speak to anyone let alone listen to a control frequency. Yet again Australians' thinking they are the best at everything and trying to preach it to the world. It's not only ludicrous it's embarrassing. The nanny state has brainwashed every Australian into thinking a rule is required to scratch your arse, after paying the appropriate fee to do so.

[cessnapete]

Fuji
Not true, I regularly fly across the London Zone in a single Cessna. For example Ascot- BUR. No PPR required just a call on Thames Radar. If traffic permits get the clearance no problem.

[Sunfish]

The general approach in business to product development, product improvement, innovation and quality control is firstly to copy what works for other people.

It is only when you are:

(a) Already copying worlds best practice.

(b) Producing a world class internationally competitive product.

© Have run out of competitors processes to copy.

That you actually strike out into the unknown and through research and development come up with new and better ways of doing things.

Those observations explain why China and so called "Tiger Economies" can post 5+ percent GDP growth for decades….until the day they have exhausted ideas to copy and find themselves doing worlds best practice…then they have to chip away at the R & D coalface with the rest of us developed economies and be satisfied with 3.5% GDP growth if they are lucky.


The idea that CASA meets any of conditions (a), (b) or © is laughably ludicrous. We have **** people using and building **** processes based on **** ideas to produce **** regulations that have no possible basis in international norms that produce **** outcomes. To put that another way, we should be doing stuff exactly like no_one suggests!

I forget who said it: "The Galapagos islands of aviation regulation."

The obvious thing to do is to sit down with the NZ regulations and adopt them with as little change as is humanly possible. This is equivalent to the number one rule of software systems implementation ; "use an international standard package and change your systems to match the software, not the other way around".

[VH-UFO]

Yaawwwwnnnnnnn.........

Oh look, another Dick Smith military bashing thread/post.

[fujii]

Cessnapete, the procedures start on 18th September. Phone PPR required for the inner zone

[Dick Smith]

Fujji. Gatwick - slightly more movements than Williamtown and its D without any special phone calls.

As I said. It's about empowering ATCs to make professional decisions to save holding delays and cost.

[fujii]

Dick,

Maybe so but this thread you initiated cited Heathrow procedures which, if introduced at Williamtown, would make transit more difficult with an inner area to deal with.

I have been held when transitting Williamtown waiting for an RPT jet to depart so if the airspace can be made more accessible well and good but Heathrow is not a good example to use.

P.s. Yesterday I happened to come across the old documentary of you and James Randi taking on the dividers. That was good work.

[no_one]

Captain bloggs,

Don't get bogged down in the minutiae. The three points that I think an airspace system should be designed around are:

1. Be consistent.
2. Be logical.
3. Focus your resources where they will do the most good.

I used examples from the US airspace system to illustrate how these principles have been applied.

In Australia we have an airspace system( and broader regulation set) that is inconsistent, illogical and fails to focus on key risks. It is inefficient and if it doesn't cost you directly (as it costs dick) it will cost you in lost future employment opportunities or freedom to fly for pleasure.

[ozbiggles]

So using your example of a young family...
They are totally safe except if they get holding waiting to fly thru the centreline at willy town as that is the only time the engine might fail?
Really, that's what you are using?

[BuzzBox]

I explained how in Australia, the military controllers at Williamtown were totally opposed to a CASA proposal that Williamtown be Class D because the controllers thought they were being down-graded.

Dick,

How do you know the military controllers at Willy are opposed to Class D? Do you have reliable information that it's because they don't want to be 'down-graded', or are you relying on third-party gossip?

[ShyTorque]

As one who has to use the LHR zone very regularly (and land in it), I'd say be careful of what you wish for.

To land at a private helicopter site now, in the "inner area", not only does one have to obtain the landowner's permission, but also one has to pay the CAA for a written permission (takes up to 28 days to obtain - so forget any short notice requests). Then, on the day the ATC supervisor has to be contacted to discuss entry permission and to obtain a slot time. Ten minutes leeway is you are allowed. Then of course, once in flight the usual radio calls must be made but you can expect no priority over IFR traffic. A separate departure clearance has to be negotiated by phone before starting up. Not easy on the individual when the passengers turn up early and unannounced and want to go immediately.

Overall, a very much retrograde step from a pilot's point of view. Aviation in UK gets more difficult every day. The rules are never for the pilots' convenience and they seem to change far too often to keep up.

[Clare Prop]

Dick, if you want to compare with the UK then how about comparing with MATZ airspace rather than Heathrow.

I've never understood why the military need such massive areas of restricted airspace here, perhaps someone can explain.

I seem to remember Gatwick being Class D when I was flying there over 20 years ago.

[ShyTorque]

I've never understood why the military need such massive areas of restricted airspace here, perhaps someone can explain.

It's for noise abatement. The noise of a fast jet hitting you up the backside.

[Lead Balloon]

And there it is, right on cue.

I'm trying to think of the aviation safety debate version of Godwin's Law. Instead of a Hitler or Nazi analogy inevitably arising, it's the overblown risk that relies on cognitive bias.

I'll call it LB's law: Sooner or later some infinitesimally small risk will be overblown and used as a justification in Australia for something that has been demonstrated as unjustified in other places where the same risk is greater.

ShyTorque: If all the fast jets in the Australian military took off at the same time and flew for their endurance trying deliberately to collide with a light aircraft in the air, the chances one of them achieving that outcome are lower than one of them being hit by a meteor. That's why nations with fast jet fleets a hundred times bigger than Australia's have military airspace volumes one thousandth the size (and less) than Australia's.

[Dick Smith]

Fujii

Was it on YouTube. ? Thread drift!

[fujii]

Yes, YouTube. I was going through some James Randi posts and that was amongst them. All the scary stuff, clothes, hair.

[ozbiggles]

For lead balloon
July 26 USAF F16 collides with a C150, two dead
Took 1 Google search
Didn't take a meteor
Take 30 seconds and you can find a list of meteors...I mean civil vs military mid airs.

Notice I didn't mention Nazis...doh

[Lead Balloon]

Yep. In countries that have real air forces and real traffic densities, there are higher probabilities of mid airs. And those countries have decided that the costs of trying to reduce the probabilities of mid airs between military aircraft and civilian aircraft to zero are unjustified and just plain silly.

Australia, on the other hand, continues to regulate to put more and more cotton wool around everything and everybody, in the belief that the world can eventually be made risk free.

And the threat of mid-airs is such a rich vein of fear to mine for those engaged in the busy and lucrative work of making more laws and putting more cotton wool around everything and every body.

Let's hope the C150 pilot had CVD, so that there's more 'evidence' to justify cleansing the skies of the danger posed by CVD.

[junior.VH-LFA]

In countries that have real air forces


Better tell the guys and girls doing 9 hour + missions over the Middle East to come on home, apparently they aren't part of a real Air Force now.

[BuzzBox]

For those who may be interested, here are some findings from the JOINT CASA AND RAAF AERONAUTICAL STUDY OF WILLIAMTOWN AIRSPACE October 2015:

"The unique circumstances of Williamtown prohibit the safe use of Class D services due to: military flying operations, geographical position of the aerodrome close to coastal VFR traffic, and lack of separation services. The annual number of passengers already meets the thresholds for at least considering Class C airspace and services. Under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration."

"The study considered all operations in the vicinity of Williamtown and the current and projected passenger numbers and concluded that Class C airspace would provide the safest and most efficient service for Williamtown."

"A coastal VFR route will be required with any airspace design due to the proximity of the aerodrome and its CTR and the need to protect aircraft in controlled airspace and RAs. The study team concluded that a VFR procedure such as Sydney Victor One is not compatible with an ICAO based CTR design for Williamtown."

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/williamtown_aug15.pdf?v=1444362227

[BuzzBox]

A few other snippets from the joint review:

"The main difference between Class C and Class D airspace is ATC are not required to separate IFR and VFR aircraft. This could provide a certain level of flexibility for both the military and civil operators.

Class D is utilised at aerodromes where the majority of aircraft are of a similar type and speed range. This is the case at aerodromes with a high proportion of GA VFR aircraft such as Bankstown and Camden.

The purpose of Class D procedures is to address the risk without major impact on the efficiency of aviation activities which is beneficial at high-density traffic locations. Critical to Class D operations is the principle of see and avoid which has several limitations14. Class D procedures provide assisted traffic de-confliction to enhance see and avoid between IFR and VFR aircraft. The main users of Williamtown airspace are high speed low visibility military aircraft operating in large numbers, quite often in formation, with limited ability to be sighted and avoided in a timely manner by civil aircraft."

"Class D airspace has reduced VFR horizontal distance and altitude below cloud requirements compared to Class C airspace. This factor combined with low visibility paint schemes and higher speeds of military aircraft further limit the ability for civil aircraft to see and avoid traffic.

The geographical position and runway orientation often puts terminal traffic in conflict with the popular coastal route. This circumstance is exacerbated by the critical stage of flight for arriving and departing aircraft which will put VFR aircraft in conflict with PT and military aircraft. Many of the PT aircraft at Williamtown are of a medium wake turbulence category which may create an unrecoverable hazard for light aircraft in a near miss situation. Therefore, the geographical proximity of the aerodrome relative to the coast creates risks that require some form of additional control measures.

However, considering that the annual number of passengers already exceeds the AAPS threshold for consideration of Class C airspace and under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration, it would be difficult to justify Class D airspace given the number of PT passengers and potential issues of see and avoid."

"When military aircraft are operating Williamtown can be one of the busiest and most complex volumes of airspace in Australia due to the diverse types of aircraft and differing operations that must be managed by ABATS. The Class C service provides clear instruction to ABATS on the processing of PT and other civil operations. Additionally, Class C airspace allows the RAAF to tailor separation standards for its use while still affording an acceptable level of safety to PT aircraft.

The only sector of the aviation community that was dissatisfied with the current Class C service was a small number of GA pilots. The main source of dissatisfaction was perceived unreasonable delays due to the need for ABATS to separate them in accordance with Class C procedures. During observations covering a period of several weeks at Williamtown the team observed only minor delays to GA aircraft all of which were justifiable as a result of arriving or departing PT aircraft not military traffic. Of note, stepped airspace would also resolve some of the need to apply restrictive separation standards as some transit aircraft could remain in Class G airspace."

[no_one]

BuzzBox, Thanks for posting the link to that report. Hopefully some of the recommendations get implemented.


The Western LFA is a large area, which is as big as the Williamtown terminal area, larger than Sydney’s airspace and comparable in size to RAAF Pearce. Figure 09-01 shows the Western LFA.

The Western LFA is mainly used by Hawk and PC9 aircraft and is activated by NOTAM, typically in one week blocks. The study team observed the activation of this airspace for only one aircraft operating in the NE corner of the area and the resultant level restrictions and additional tracking by a civil aircraft to avoid the LFA. The civil aircraft was 25 nm from the military aircraft actual area of operation. Further, PT aircraft on the W223 route from NICLA to Taree can be held up in descent because the Western LFA is active to 9,000 ft AMSL. ABATS and ATC reported that this was not an unusual occurrence and that they had no visibility or control of the LFA operations. A segmented redesign of the LFAs combined with slight route changes could improve the descent options for PT aircraft.

Another aspect that requires investigation is the actual need for RA airspace for Defence Low Flying operations. In accordance with the Act, the decision to use RA airspace for low flying needs to be based on safety. Therefore, a risk based assessment and justification is required for the RA airspace. Such an assessment may indicate a lower level type of mitigation of the risk, such as a DA may be suitable.

[no_one]

Another interesting section



9.3.12 Ship Transfer Area of Operation
The Ship Transfer Area of Operation, known as Marine 1 airspace, is a local procedure for the processing of helicopters used for ship to shore transfers. The area was introduced because radar coverage in the area wasn’t sufficient to provide a surveillance based separation service. A radar map of the area of operation is now displayed on the controller’s screen which enables the controller to provide radar separation between Williamtown traffic and the Marine 1 airspace.

The issue with using a system radar map is that the required separation from the boundary creates a funnelling effect on Williamtown traffic. This is made worse when R596 Salt Ash becomes active. When Marine 1 and R596 are active only one track (runway heading) is available to the controller.
It was found that the helicopters operating in the Marine 1 airspace are typically below 500 ft AMSL and approximately 6.5 nm from the airfield. It seems excessive when considering that if the Marine 1 area was a known obstacle below 500 ft AMSL it would be accounted for (avoided) in the ATC traffic management of flight operations but ignored in regards to having to separate from it as if it was an aircraft. This is another example of a problem being created by the lack of stepped airspace and the application of Class C procedures. While this report cannot recommend a change to separation standards it is likely that with CTA steps and CTR redesign the Marine 1 area could be removed from future controlled airspace thereby avoiding the need to apply separation standards.

Finding 27
Marine 1 airspace protects aircraft from a perceived risk, rather than an actual risk.
The airspace creates new risks that must be managed by ABATS. Current MATS and MOS Part 172 separation standards do not provide a suitable solution.

Recommendation 27
Marine 1 airspace should be reviewed in the context of a stepped airspace design.

[Dick Smith]

I love it. It's all about keeping the status quo re the classification so no change has to be made.

That's because it's clear on the ATC side of the RAAF there is a shocking lack of personnel with leadership abilities who can make change,

Note the double mention of the discredited safety "as the most important consideration"

That's rubbish as safety is always limited be the resources available if aviation is to be affordable . As I have stated elsewhere Australia is the only country that has such a statement in the act. It's used to stop cost reductions and allow a one way ratchet if more expensive regulations .

Class D simply gives ATCs more flexibility to safely move aircraft . They can provide the same separation as C if they so choose . Most of the delays in the lane are caused by civil aircraft arriving from the west.

Compare Williamtown movements with Gatwick which has always been D.

[Dick Smith]

When the first ditching fatalities occur I and others will make sure those who have prevented this commonsense change over many decades are held responsible.

The reason the team did not see a lot of VFR holding is that many pilots like myself don't go that way anymore .

[flydive1]

When the first ditching fatalities occur I and others will make sure those who have prevented this commonsense change over many decades are held responsible.

Are you advocating that flying over water should be prohibited?

Only for single engine? Twins too?

Only VFR or all?

[rutan around]

Flydive 1 says:-

Are you advocating that flying over water should be prohibited?

Only for single engine? Twins too?

Only VFR or all?

No Flydive 1 .
Dick is saying the military should stop being selfish dogs in the manger.

[BuzzBox]

It's all about keeping the status quo re the classification so no change has to be made.

That's because it's clear on the ATC side of the RAAF there is a shocking lack of personnel with leadership abilities who can make change,

If you're not satisfied with findings of the 133-page CASA/RAAF joint study into the Williamtown airspace, then perhaps you should fight fire with fire. Commission an objective, independent study that avoids hyperbole and is based on the facts.

[Dick Smith]

Most of the holding over the ocean is completely unnecessary if proper airspace was instigated.

Class D is utilised in major international airports in Europe. Why not try it at Willy?

What's wrong with empowering controllers to let them use their skills as allowed in other countries

[BuzzBox]

I'm not an airspace expert; the CASA/RAAF study recommended a number of changes to the Williamtown airspace, but it forthrightly rejected Class D as a solution. Who's right; CASA/RAAF or Dick Smith? If you think you're right, then you need to do a lot more than jump up and down on the sidelines making noise. You need to show that they are wrong - hyperbole and insults won't make a scrap of difference!

[Popgun]

Has the possibility of a VFR corridor directly over the top of YWLM been explored?

Perhaps similar to that over KLAX at 3500' in one direction and 4500' in the other direction where no ATC clearance is required?

If it ran in a NE-SW direction it would run perpendicular to the approach paths to RWYs 12/30 and be clear of final approach and circuit traffic at that height.

Thoughts?

PG

[Dick Smith]

It's impossible to get them to change anything. I attempted to for over 20 years using rational logic.

Same group think resulted in $1.4 b lost on the Super Seasprite. That money could have been used to pay RAAF personnel decent wages.

The CASA document is clearly a con. Naval Air Station Lemoore is the home of the US Navy's fighter attack capability for the entire west coast and has over 175 FA18's stationed there and is , wait for it, class D

Gatwick is one of the busiest airports in Europe with over 40 million passengers per annum and is D.

That whole paper was all about keeping what was put in place when I was responsible for the AMATS changes. Zero leadership.

Was the paper prepared under Mr Cromarty's leadership? Where is he now?

Notice how no one disputes my claim that with D the ATC can still separate IFR and VFR as both must comply with ATC instructions. Once again D empowers controllers to use there own professional skill and judgement to move more traffic with less delay if they wish to.

[LeadSled]

There are things that the yanks do which are just plain stupid; that doesn't mean we have to follow. Bloggs,
How about an example!! Aeronautically speaking.

For those who may be interested, here are some findings from the JOINT CASA AND RAAF AERONAUTICAL STUDY OF WILLIAMTOWN AIRSPACE October 2015:Naturally, we can rely absolutely on the finding, absolutely no question of conflict of interest, per-conception bias, proponent bias, confirmation bias or any of the other issues that arise when a bureaucracy (whether uniformed or not) investigates itself.
For goodness sake, people, have a look at a standard MATZ/NATO/US military zone, then really justify the extent of military airspace in Australia, including the size of Williamtown or Richmond. There is absolutely nothing that happens at these places that justified the profligate airspace restrictions, and the consequent inefficiency in airspace utilisation.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Speaking of profligate use of airspace, the preliminary design for Sydney West is to cater for Class E circling approaches as the main criteria --- resulting is a zone slightly larger than Heathrow.
Any of you flying Class E aircraft ?? Done a circling approach in one recently?? Ever?? How many Class E civil aircraft are there?? I haven't noticed and F-111 on the civil register.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Same group think resulted in $1.4 b lost on the Super Seasprite. That money could have been used to pay RAAF personnel decent wages.


For the love of god man, stop it with the Seasprite argument. It isn't relevant, the people that ran the program weren't uniforms, it was a DMO/Government thing. It's a completely false accusation and argument and it just shows your lack of knowledge in how the ADF actually works.

[Capn Bloggs]

How about an example!!
Seatbelts, gun laws...

Aeronautically speaking.
Nice try.

[BuzzBox]

Naturally, we can rely absolutely on the finding, absolutely no question of conflict of interest, per-conception bias, proponent bias, confirmation bias or any of the other issues that arise when a bureaucracy (whether uniformed or not) investigates itself.

Of course not, but what else do we have? If there is a genuine argument for change, then the proponents of that argument need to do the ground work and prove their case. Dick Smith's rants on PPRuNe don't 'prove' anything and are only likely to harden the attitudes of those on the other side of the argument.

[BuzzBox]

For goodness sake, people, have a look at a standard MATZ/NATO/US military zone, then really justify the extent of military airspace in Australia, including the size of Williamtown or Richmond.

I could possibly agree with you about Richmond, but I would have a much harder time with Williamtown. I wonder how many of you naysayers have actually operated a military aircraft in those areas or have any clue about the type and frequency of operations that are conducted there. I also wonder if you have ever looked at the amount of airspace that is designated as either 'Restricted' or 'Military Operations Area' (MOA) around places such as NAS Lemoore and Nellis AFB in the USA. Although MOAs do not prohibit VFR aircraft, I think you'd be a bloody fool to go blundering through an active MOA where multiple fighters could be conducting air combat manoeuvring at high speed and extremely high rates of climb & descent.

There is plenty of whingeing by the US AOPA about such areas, so it seems that GA drivers in the US aren't happy either. Perhaps some of you lot need to get a grip and realise that national security concerns sometimes take precedence over your desire to fly wherever you want, whenever you feel like it.

[The name is Porter]

You fellas should get out more, I'm flying GA at the moment in the States. What a breath of fresh air, people who 'get' aviation instead of flat earth experts. Most of you have never been here let alone actually looked at how it works.

[LeadSled]

BuzzBox,
As it so happens, I do have extensive experience of the US airspace system, including MOAs etc., in everything from light singles VFR through to somewhat larger aircraft, and a few in between, Porter has got it right, I rather suspect you are the one with limited experience, at least from the civil side.

It is so very sad that the blinkered thinking of those who have only flown in Australia, and believe that is the only ( or the normal/average) way, simply cannot comprehend the US approach, and the joy, the fun of flying in US ( and Canada, to give them their due) compared to Australia.

And do not forget, the US air safety outcomes are far superior to Australia, does this suggest they might just be doing something right ---- certainly more right than Australia, where freedom, in all of its manifestations, is increasingly circumscribed.

Tootle pip!!

[BuzzBox]

LeadSled,

Your assertions regarding my experience are very, very wrong. At least I've had the benefit of seeing things from both sides of the fence, having worked in the military and civilian worlds for many years, in various countries. I'd like to think I have some understanding of both sides of the argument. I wonder if you can say the same?

With the benefit of your 'extensive experience', what should be done with the airspace around Williamtown that will satisfy all users?

[no_one]

Buzzbox,

I cant speak for Lead Slead but here is my go at how the airspace around Williamtown could work out. This is based largely on the recommendations in the CASA/RAAF report

Google maps link:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1w5M1h9BStGythL7ctiDmBwVwrZI&usp=sharing

Key Features:


Stepped rings of Class C have been adopted around Williamtown. Inner ring is 8nm and surface. Next is 12nm and 1000 feet, Outer ring is 20nm and has a class c base of 2000feet. Recommendations 1,13 and 16.
The Low flying area has been converted to a large danger following a risk assessment. Recommendation 9.
A coastal VFR route which would allow an aircraft to fly at 1000 feet up the coast with a clearance through the Class C airspace. Recommendation 23 Alternatively an aircraft could go ~3nm off shore at 1000 feet to stay outside the class C.
The large restricted areas for military flying are retained but are divided in logical was so that they can be released effectively when not in use.


What do you think?

http://i63.tinypic.com/2u8xnro.jpg

[fujii]

How would this reduce holding on the coast with departures from RWY 12 or arrivals on RWY 30. Wouldn't three miles off shore require life jackets in a single?

[BuzzBox]

No_one,

I think you'd also have to allow for the Salt Ash Weapons Range (R596), from SFC - FL120. The current CTR extends out to 12nm and encompasses most of R596. The rest might work and seems to comply with the recommendations in the CASA/RAAF joint study. Mind you, it won't keep those pushing for Class D happy!

[no_one]

Fujii,

Thats right. This would not allow for a coastal transit without a clearance. It would however allow for a very easy inland transit.

This is one area where the whole rule situation needs to be taken into account. In the USA there is no requirement under part 91 for lifejackets unless you are 50 miles off shore so a short diversion out around airspace can be done without them. See for example the lakeshore to the east of Chicago O'hare or south of JFK? Is the risk of an engine failure at the exact instant resulting in a controlled ditching so high that it offsets convenience of GA being able to move through major centres unhindered?

[no_one]

Buzzbox,

Sorry R596 was on another layer. I have added it back in now.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1w5M1h9BStGythL7ctiDmBwVwrZI&usp=sharing

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

an aircraft could go ~3nm off shore at 1000 feet
Provided they survived the ditching after the engine failure, could mum, dad, and the kiddies swim 3 miles?:}

[no_one]

Provided they survived the ditching after the engine failure, could mum, dad, and the kiddies swim 3 miles?


For a start most light aircraft starting at cruise speed would make the shore from 3 miles and 1000 feet with a failed engine.

I realise that the proposal isnt perfect but it is much better than the status quo. Not being perfect isnt a reason not to adopt the change. The airspace shown on that map and the outlined in the CASA report is a massive improvement for GA, RPT and the RAAF. It would allow a VFR aircraft to travel via East Maitland and Clarence town at 2000 feet, with terrain in that area at about 600 feet.

On the specific point of going over water in a single engine aircraft, there are also many points in a flight where an engine failure at that exact moment would result in a poor outcome. The incident at Bankstown yesterday shows the that clearly. But we accept that risk when we fly.

[Lead Balloon]

You're making the mistake of arguing on the basis of realistic rather than perceived risks and probabilities, no_one.

I think that the rules should be changed so that lifejackets are not sufficient for single-engine flights over water beyond gliding distance from land. A shark-proof cage should be carried as well, especially off Samurai and Stockton Beaches, which are well-known Noah territory. That and full-body suits to provide protection from bluebottles and box jellyfish. You tell me there's zero risk of shark attack and bluebottle and jellyfish stings after a ditching, and I'll change my mind.

It's OK to fly over tiger country single engine, because an unsurvivable forced landing in tiger country is a much nicer way to die than drowning or being chomped up by a shark. Therefore, the probabilities of the latter happening are higher than the former and greater and more expensive mitigation strategies are therefore justified. It stands to reason.

In any event, light aircraft should not be anywhere near military aircraft, because a Cessna doesn't look good as a hood ornament on an F/A 18. It's self-evidently a collision risk having them in the air at the same time within range of each other, and the fact that one of the aircraft is an expensive, super-sonic, highly manoeuvrable, sophisticated piece of weaponry piloted by highly trained ADF personnel means the risk of collisions with civilian aircraft should be reduced to zero.

One mid-air will prove that the restricted/controlled airspace around these places should be bigger, not smaller.

(In short, I agree entirely with you, no_one. It's a good solution that balances realistic risks and realistic costs/benefits. Not perfect; but there's no such thing.)

[Plazbot]

I think no_one's suggestion has merit. The discussion of the costal option as per today exists as the other two option of up the train line or over the Barrington Tops are less direct. Freeing up a 2000ft over land option has merit.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

For a start most light aircraft starting at cruise speed would make the shore from 3 miles and 1000 feet with a failed engine.

From the leading Aviation expert in Australia:

out over the ocean, quite often with young families on board, knowing if there is an engine failure it’s most likely everyone will drown.

;)

[no_one]

Traffic Is Er Was,

The two statements are not necessarily contradictory, holding at a lower speed, doing orbits at 500 feet 1 mile off the coast, if the engine fails when you are pointed out to sea you have to do a 180 degree turn (or potentially more unless you reverse it) before you start heading back in, you don't have the speed or the height to get very far. If you load mum dad and the kids into a 182 or Saratoga and are at ~130 knots and 1000 feet and 3 is miles off shore you have a very high probability of making the beech. For some people that distance would be close to a normal downwind leg. (just joking.... kind of)

When people on both side of the argument focus on emotional risks rather than real ones, we end up with outcomes that are less safe or efficient than if the risks were addressed objectively.