NSW Mil Areas changes 30th November 23

[10JQKA]

https://news.defence.gov.au/media/media-releases/raaf-and-airservices-australia-re-design-military-training-area-airspace

Things gonna look very different in/out of SY to the NW and in/out of QLD to VIC/SA/WA for passenger jets very soon. One wonders how airline bean counters feel about long diversion routes and sub optimum levels for 26/52 weeks a year ?

[Gunner747400]

Cause they don't already have enough airspace....

[Lead Balloon]

As with the hours during which wars are usually fought, “[t]he restricted airspace is expected to mainly be used during business hours on weekdays.” It is also expected that members of the public and non-military aviation operators will be happy to rearrange work schedules so as to focus on early morning and late evening travel, to avoid inconveniencing the RAAF and interrupting the wellness regimes of people who really do need a good night’s sleep, a supportive transition to each working morning and a non-confrontational work environment during the day.

However, some concessions have been made by the RAAF. According to a RAAF spokesperson: “Members of the public can rest assured that air travel through the expanded restricted areas is likely to be lawful on the afternoons of most Wednesdays and Fridays, despite those often being business hours for the taxpayers who pay for the RAAF’s operations.” The spokesperson went on to explain: “The RAAF has found that taking Wednesday afternoons off for sporting activities and leaving at lunch time on Fridays is helpful to the wellness regimes of our people.” The RAAF spokesperson also added: “Of course, members of the public should feel free to use our airspace on most public holidays. If we fly on those days, it is expected mainly to be to show off by turning your money into noise at low levels rather than at altitudes where we prefer not to be distracted by the potential for anyone to be in the way or risk frying their brains with the cutting-edge turboencabulator technology which gives us the edge over our Palm Islander and East Timorese adversaries.”

[10JQKA]

I love this bit....

"Most of the flying training will be conducted at altitudes well above 10,000 feet and has been designed to have minimal impact on other airspace users"

The punters paying $$$s for seats don't even make the grade of airspace user !

[tossbag]

Cut our boys and girls some slack, there's a fair chance they'll be seeing action soon while you're sitting on your arse watching the world cup finals in a few sports.

[BuzzBox]

Think it's bad in Oz? Try flying around China, where most of the airspace is controlled by the military. "Request direct XXXXX" = "Cannot"; "Request 10 NM left of track due weather" = "Cannot"; "How about 10 NM right of track due weather" = "Cannot".

[10JQKA]

1/11th of the world's airspace of which 90% is more or less unused and they have to play war games in the triangle and disrupt 90% of aviation users.

[Lead Balloon]

Cut our boys and girls some slack, there's a fair chance they'll be seeing action soon while you're sitting on your arse watching the world cup finals in a few sports.Against whom?

[Eclan]

https://news.defence.gov.au/media/media-releases/raaf-and-airservices-australia-re-design-military-training-area-airspace

Things gonna look very different in/out of SY to the NW and in/out of QLD to VIC/SA/WA for passenger jets very soon. One wonders how airline bean counters feel about long diversion routes and sub optimum levels for 26/52 weeks a year ?
Why would you (as a pilot) care what the bean-counters think? This smells more like an anti-RAAF grudge under the guise of efficiency concerns which aren't even for you to worry over.

I laugh heartily when civvies complain about airspace our military professionals use to maintain their standards. Yes they knock off early and head to the bar where they drink at discount rates and discuss how satisfying it was burning tax-payer funded flying hours. If you're envious of that lifestyle you should've applied (or tried harder at school).

Your civvy trash-hauler pilot will still fly the same number of hours each month so what's the difference?

[10JQKA]

Yeah you're right don't care what the bean counters think. Maybe what I meant to say was how odd it is that we haven't heard them scream blue murder yet. Guess it will happen in June 23 !
Other thing is it will get pretty chaotic in and around that airspace. When weather/turb are around there ain't going to be many L/R or up/down options avbl and plenty of foreign carriers in the mix too.
Anyway like most changes nobody cares til it's happened and then it's too late to change anything.

[extralite]

Why would you (as a pilot) care what the bean-counters think? This smells more like an anti-RAAF grudge under the guise of efficiency concerns which aren't even for you to worry over.

I laugh heartily when civvies complain about airspace our military professionals use to maintain their standards. Yes they knock off early and head to the bar where they drink at discount rates and discuss how satisfying it was burning tax-payer funded flying hours. If you're envious of that lifestyle you should've applied (or tried harder at school).

Your civvy trash-hauler pilot will still fly the same number of hours each month so what's the difference?


"Trash-haulers" vs "military professionals" hey. "Tried harder at school." "Knock of early for discount drinks.": And then you talk about an "anti-RAAF grudge.". Wonder why? As an ex RAAF pilot, those comments are an embarrassment and not how most of my colleagues thought. Just the tossers..Both jobs are hard slogs. And even when in the RAAF, i thought we wasted a lot of airspace. Sometimes whole blocks of airspace blocked off for one aircraft doing a test flight or just a routine return to base from somewhere. It is ridiculous but the RAAF wouldn't care unless a minister put their foot down.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

aircrew identified a need to redesign the RAAF Base Williamtown western military airspace as a result of specific training requirements for the F-35A Lightning II
God forbid they should actually locate to a RAAF Base closer to where they might actually be needed and train there. The airspace above 10000ft must be unique to that area.

[tossbag]

Against whom?

Have a guess mate? Take a stab, wild guess.

[tossbag]

Why would you (as a pilot) care what the bean-counters think? This smells more like an anti-RAAF grudge under the guise of efficiency concerns which aren't even for you to worry over.

I laugh heartily when civvies complain about airspace our military professionals use to maintain their standards. Yes they knock off early and head to the bar where they drink at discount rates and discuss how satisfying it was burning tax-payer funded flying hours. If you're envious of that lifestyle you should've applied (or tried harder at school).

I'm a civvie, but I actually respect what our defence force do and the people that serve. I actually don't mind that they get to live and work in a non ****hole knowing that at the drop of a hat we expect them to head off to ****holes to defend pathetic, woke, uneducated arses.

[Lead Balloon]

Thanks, tossbag. As a consequence of having served for a couple of decades in the RAAF, I too respect what our defence force does and the people who serve in it. Perhaps more than you do.

Let’s hope the previous government’s announcement of a long-term plan to expand the ADF to the size it was in the mid-1970s is implemented. Australia’s Lillipution – I mean ‘boutique’ – ADF needs to be somewhat larger if it is to stave off that baddie whose name you dare not speak. Imagine how scared that baddie must be, knowing that the entirety of the ADF’s personnel could fit into the MCG. And spending upwards of $5billion on a terminated submarine project made a lot of people in suits richer but contributed nothing to defence capability. Plenty of other people in suits are getting richer off defence spending while contributing little-to-nothing to defence capability.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on whether the increased volume of restricted airspace – even the existing volume - is justified by the risks and costs. It’s not surprising that if there’s an option to operate in splendid isolation in a huge volume of restricted airspace, it’s taken. But that’s not how our allies train. For a reason.

[dr dre]

Why would you (as a pilot) care what the bean-counters think? This smells more like an anti-RAAF grudge under the guise of efficiency concerns which aren't even for you to worry over.

I laugh heartily when civvies complain about airspace our military professionals use to maintain their standards.

Why is it a laughing matter? I’ve seen military airspace devoid of traffic (or very sparsely populated with training only flights) not being opened up to civilian traffic when huge thunderstorms are brewing next door. Then to add the incompetence of RAAF ATC controlled civilian airports and their proven inability to properly separate traffic leading to loss of separation incidents. The management of military airspace in this country has been a debacle and has flight safety risks, and all I can see from this change is more deviation requests being denied in the (at times) very active northern NSW corridor where you can get some epic storms.


Yes they knock off early and head to the bar where they drink at discount rates and discuss how satisfying it was burning tax-payer funded flying hours. If you're envious of that lifestyle you should've applied (or tried harder at school).

Not jealous of that lifestyle at all, I much prefer a civilian airline lifestyle. Not sure where this “jealousy” idea came from, I and about 90% of my civilian colleagues never applied to join the RAAF. We chose our career path just as much as you chose yours.

[Gne]

Seems that combining ADF and Civilian ATC/ATM is not as simple as some folk imagined - and they started imagining it over thirty years ago, despite the statement in the article in The Mandarin : Defence-sounds-new-warning-on-4-1-billion-national-air-traffic-control-system

Gne

[10JQKA]

https://www.themandarin.com.au/204016-defence-sounds-new-warning-on-4-1-billion-national-air-traffic-control-system/

[Super Cecil]

as with the hours during which wars are usually fought, “[t]he restricted airspace is expected to mainly be used during business hours on weekdays.” it is also expected that members of the public and non-military aviation operators will be happy to rearrange work schedules so as to focus on early morning and late evening travel, to avoid inconveniencing the raaf and interrupting the wellness regimes of people who really do need a good night’s sleep, a supportive transition to each working morning and a non-confrontational work environment during the day.

However, some concessions have been made by the raaf. According to a raaf spokesperson: “members of the public can rest assured that air travel through the expanded restricted areas is likely to be lawful on the afternoons of most wednesdays and fridays, despite those often being business hours for the taxpayers who pay for the raaf’s operations.” the spokesperson went on to explain: “the raaf has found that taking wednesday afternoons off for sporting activities and leaving at lunch time on fridays is helpful to the wellness regimes of our people.” the raaf spokesperson also added: “of course, members of the public should feel free to use our airspace on most public holidays. If we fly on those days, it is expected mainly to be to show off by turning your money into noise at low levels rather than at altitudes where we prefer not to be distracted by the potential for anyone to be in the way or risk frying their brains with the cutting-edge turboencabulator technology which gives us the edge over our palm islander and east timorese adversaries.”

😁😁😁😁😁

[172heavy]

Cut our boys and girls some slack, there's a fair chance they'll be seeing action soon while you're sitting on your arse watching the world cup finals in a few sports.
Correct, 2030 was the forecasted prediction the adf has been working towards for years but everything has been slide left to 2027 from what I've been told. Hence all of the rapid defence decisions and spending in the past 12 months.

[finestkind]

The wheel turns, too frequently. Complaining about the cost of equipment and then the cost of utilising them. Undoubtedly there would be complaints about equipment sitting on the tarmac not being utilised. Then we don’t buy it and when either the sh)t hits the fan or we want to wave a big stick to make someone think twice it is too late. Bases to close to heavily nice, populated areas. Well once they were not heavily populated areas or airways. A bit like noise complaints from those having bought near airports. And thank heavens for an opinion that is devoid of facts. Unless things have changed discounted drinks departed decades ago.

[cogwheel]

Not once in this discussion so far has there being any mention of the OAR, the section within CASA whose role is to manage the establishment of airspace (amongst other related tasks).
This proposal would be on their table somewhere and the OAR thru CASA have a responsibility to ensure such proposals are valid and balanced for all users and fully consulted with industry. Sadly however I don’t presently believe the workings of the OAR are being fully supported within CASA by some senior managers and an obvious influence by ASA who only want change to not cost them anything.

[10JQKA]

The link in the opening post if you scroll to the bottom there is another link which takes you to the AsA engage portal on this. And then in the engage portal down the bottom of that is a link to the AVSEF consultation on this. Am sure OAR has some sort of connection with AVSEF ?
Problem is all these info channels don't include the ppl most affected, the punters paying more per ticket and the airline finance guy having to pay more for supply of services due to the impacts of changed routes, bad levels etc etc. The consultation doesn't target the ppl who will be adversely affected and hence why it's hard to see any changes being made. Who would propose them ?

[cogwheel]

Yes, the OAR does have an interface with AVSEF which I would expect to consult widely on this proposal. However ASA of late seem to be wanting to undertake their own consultation with segments of industry (not everyone) regardless of AVSEF..

For those that have been around a while, we have seen the destruction over the past five years or so of what may well have been the most successful and longest running (almost 40 yrs) consultation forum. I am referring to the RAPACs which CASA backed out of in favour of AVSEF. Even in its last years ASA backed out of participation and helped bring about it’s demise.

The AVSEF process has not replaced the RAPACs as the consultation is not as broad and does not generate open discussion with industry. We shall see how this works out, but the RAAF stand a good chance of getting most of what they want. Why not ask them where the proposed VFR lanes through AMB got to?

[Lead Balloon]

It’s interesting to go back to ‘first principles’ on airspace management, and in particular the declaration of restricted areas. Regulations 6 and 7 of the Airspace Regulations 2007 relevantly say:6 Designation of prohibited, restricted or danger areas

(1) CASA may, in writing, make a declaration designating an area of Australian territory to be a prohibited area, a restricted area or a danger area.

(2) CASA must not declare an area to be a prohibited area unless, in the opinion of CASA, it is necessary for reasons of military necessity to prohibit the flight of aircraft over the area.

(3) CASA must not declare an area to be a restricted area unless, in the opinion of CASA, it is necessary to restrict the flight of aircraft over the area to aircraft flown in accordance with specified conditions in the interests of any of the following:

(a) public safety, including the safety of aircraft in flight;

(b) the protection of the environment;

(c) security.

(4) CASA must not declare an area to be a danger area unless, in the opinion of CASA, there exists within or over the area an activity that is a potential danger to aircraft flying over the area.

…

7 Publication of a designation

(1) CASA must cause a declaration designating an area to be a prohibited area, a restricted area or a danger area to be published:

(a) if the declaration is to have effect for a period of 3 months or longer—in the AIP; or

(b) in any other case—in a NOTAM.

(2) Publication of a declaration of a restricted area must set out the conditions in accordance with which the flight of aircraft over the area is permitted.

…There are a couple of very important things to note out of that:

First, restricted airspace is about - or is supposed to be about - what is happening in the area of Australian territory underneath the airspace. For example, mine blasting could put at risk the safety of aircraft flying over the mine. For example, the security of some classified installation on the ground might be put at risk if aircraft could fly over and ‘spy’ on the installation.

Contrast danger areas, which are about activities within the danger area (or in the area of Australian territory underneath the danger area) that are a potential danger to aircraft. Look closely and compare the words in regs 6(3) and 6(4): “over” versus “within or over”. For example, intense flying training is something happening within airspace, which is why they are generally declared danger areas.

Short point: Military aircraft flying around in a chunk of airspace is not, of itself, sufficient for the valid declaration of that chunk of airspace to be “restricted”. Restricted airspace is about the risks caused by or to stuff on the ground/water underneath the airspace (provided it’s in Australian territory).

Secondly, and in any event, restricted airspace is usable on satisfaction of conditions. Those conditions of use must be published along with the declaration of the restricted area (reg 7(2).

Short point: There is no such thing as an ‘active’ restricted area that cannot be used, no matter the circumstances. (That's a 'prohibited' area.) All restricted airspace is useable, subject to conditions, which conditions must be published.

At least that’s the theory.

Alas, mere trivialities like the law rarely get in the way of airspace management in Australia. Out of many, many examples, does anyone recall the conditions of use of the restricted area recently declared, by NOTAM, around Shepparton? I don’t recall them being published in the NOTAM.

(And for the sake of completeness: The ADF has no separate power to designate airspace.)

[Gne]

"Airspace is a non renewable national resource" - quote from the forward of the recommendations from the AERU when drafting the original Airspace Act in 2004.

As at least one of the frequent posters on this site will remember, the recommendations of the AERU were based on the premise that the management of airspace was a policy matter and not one of regulation and therefore the office charged with "airspace" should be within the ministry and not in the regulator. Unfortunately the combined efforts of Airservices (worried about the financial implications) and CASA (worried about not having sufficient "control") managed to have the OAR established within CASA and then progressively gelded by poor personnel choices and internal politics to arrive at the sorry state it now finds itself.

Much that same can be said for the reasons and processes behind the demise of NAPAC and RAPAC and the changes in the upper level committee, once known as the Air Coordinating Committee and its regional elements (RACS) where robust and effective stakeholder engagement and discussion could take place.

The fox is now in charge of the hen house and reasoned policy discussions on airspace management and joint facilities and shared use and inconvenience (once a good workable arrangement) for airspace are in the hands of rank amateurs posing as regulators with inadequate experience and understanding of both.

Gne

[10JQKA]

This airspace could send a mob like Bonza broke even before they start ! Imagine trying to get a Sunny Coast to Avalon/Albury/ Mildura flight through that obstacle course !
I pity the ATCs trying to make a silk purse out of that sow's ear of an airspace.

[Lead Balloon]

I asked a mate of mine - coincidentally an ex-RAAFie like me - who's been flying GA for decades in the UK, what airspace arrangements apply around fighter jet bases like RAF Coningsby. His reply says, among other things:In UK there’s a concept called MATZ (MIL Air Traffic Zone). Technically they’re optional for us to avoid, but we “should” seek permission to enter. They’re treated as class G otherwise. This is the main form of protection for fighter bases in our busy airspace like at Coningsby. Some RAF stations have Class D around them, notably Brize Norton. That you can’t ignore but I’ve never had a problem asking for a crossing. Also in UK we have no designated Low Flying lanes for the fast jets: they can (and do) this any/everywhere. We all just have to see and avoid!One wonders how the RAF can possibly survive and remain competent without thousands of cubic kilometres of restricted airspace to fly in.

[tossbag]

Perhaps more than you do.

I don't think you do, but hey.

Let’s hope the previous government’s announcement of a long-term plan to expand the ADF to the size it was in the mid-1970s is implemented. Australia’s Lillipution – I mean ‘boutique’ – ADF needs to be somewhat larger if it is to stave off that baddie whose name you dare not speak.

I think any intelligent person is well aware that if the unspeakable enemy initiates an attack that 'we'd' last around a week before the white flags go up. But we're also not going to throw our hands in the air from day one.So what are you going to do? Prepare?

Imagine how scared that baddie must be, knowing that the entirety of the ADF’s personnel could fit into the MCG. And spending upwards of $5billion on a terminated submarine project made a lot of people in suits richer but contributed nothing to defence capability. Plenty of other people in suits are getting richer off defence spending while contributing little-to-nothing to defence capability.

That doesn't help the people that we expect to march/fly/sail off to war now does it. Australia is not about to throw their hands in the air, drop their guns on day one.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on whether the increased volume of restricted airspace – even the existing volume - is justified by the risks and costs. It’s not surprising that if there’s an option to operate in splendid isolation in a huge volume of restricted airspace, it’s taken. But that’s not how our allies train. For a reason.

My comments were semi light hearted, Australians are weak, soft and lack any moral courage or fibre. We saw that over the last 2.5 years, if I was in the defence force I'd find it difficult to justify laying my life on the line for the majority of the population. What exactly do you think you can do about the restricted areas? Nuthin' mate, if you want a say on aviation infrastructure, airspace etc, move to the States where having a say is protected by a constitution. Here, you're pushing **** up hill. If you don't know your place in this 'society' you haven't been listening over the last few years.

[Eclan]

My comments were semi light hearted, Australians are weak, soft and lack any moral courage or fibre. We saw that over the last 2.5 years, if I was in the defence force I'd find it difficult to justify laying my life on the line for the majority of the population. What exactly do you think you can do about the restricted areas? Nuthin' mate, if you want a say on aviation infrastructure, airspace etc, move to the States where having a say is protected by a constitution. Here, you're pushing **** up hill. If you don't know your place in this 'society' you haven't been listening over the last few years.
I know what it is to which you're referring and that would be one of the more succinct posts on that topic I've read on here and I couldn't agree more, Tossbag. I'm glad to see another in my profession who can see what's been going on and would count you in a very small number of the same that I know of. The rest of you, take heed.

[le Pingouin]

Thankyou for demanding the vulnerable lay their lives on the line so you can have a beer or whatever terribly important thing you missed out on. Thankfully you're both in the minority.

[10JQKA]

Le Pingoiun,

From previous reading of some of your contributions you seem to have some previous/current ATC experience. Could you describe how these types of mass Aispace/Restricted Area/Route/level changes can affect the workload and normal flow of traffic in and around a Sector like this ?
And then throw in some storm systems moving across there or severe turbulence or a day where everyone planned low F250 chasing winds etc ?

[Lead Balloon]

"Airspace is a non renewable national resource" - quote from the forward of the recommendations from the AERU when drafting the original Airspace Act in 2004.

As at least one of the frequent posters on this site will remember, the recommendations of the AERU were based on the premise that the management of airspace was a policy matter and not one of regulation and therefore the office charged with "airspace" should be within the ministry and not in the regulator. Unfortunately the combined efforts of Airservices (worried about the financial implications) and CASA (worried about not having sufficient "control") managed to have the OAR established within CASA and then progressively gelded by poor personnel choices and internal politics to arrive at the sorry state it now finds itself.

Much that same can be said for the reasons and processes behind the demise of NAPAC and RAPAC and the changes in the upper level committee, once known as the Air Coordinating Committee and its regional elements (RACS) where robust and effective stakeholder engagement and discussion could take place.

The fox is now in charge of the hen house and reasoned policy discussions on airspace management and joint facilities and shared use and inconvenience (once a good workable arrangement) for airspace are in the hands of rank amateurs posing as regulators with inadequate experience and understanding of both.

GneI would have thought that the single most beneficial change to benefit airspace management in Australia would be the prescription of objective risk and cost and other coherent criteria on the basis of which classes and of volumes of those classes of airspace may validly be declared. That would in my view be a small step in the right direction - that is, towards declarations in the objective public interest.

[tossbag]

And then throw in some storm systems moving across there or severe turbulence or a day where everyone planned low F250 chasing winds etc ?

Sqwark 7700, declare a mayday and divert through it if you have to.

[le Pingouin]

10JQKA, recently retired en-route. Standard alternate routes are usually the way it's handled. Generally it's not just sprung on us so we have plenty of time to plan. As to the weather, etc, well we have to play that by ear. Of course it adds to workload and complicates things but that's what we're paid for.

I suspect this is part of the development for OneSky - the intention is for a more dynamic use of restricted airspace than we currently have once we're all using the same system.

[dr dre]

Sqwark 7700, declare a mayday and divert through it if you have to.

That may be one of the most idiotic things I’ve ever read. Pilots will need to routinely declare emergencies just to operate safely in Australia? It’ll just box pilots into corners, force them to run past storms with fewer safety margins rather than go through the hassle of declaring an emergency, followed by the paperwork and subsequent investigations. Eventually some RAAF empire builder will decide to make an example and prosecute a civilian pilot just trying safely operate their machine, dissuading others from doing the same.

[Lead Balloon]

Maybe he was being “semi light hearted”.

[tossbag]

Oh dr dre, you poor little dear, lighten up mate, you'll choke it.

[tossbag]

That may be one of the most idiotic things I’ve ever read. Pilots will need to routinely declare emergencies just to operate safely in Australia? It’ll just box pilots into corners, force them to run past storms with fewer safety margins rather than go through the hassle of declaring an emergency, followed by the paperwork and subsequent investigations. Eventually some RAAF empire builder will decide to make an example and prosecute a civilian pilot just trying safely operate their machine, dissuading others from doing the same.

Yeah...........ok, sounds plausible. :cool:

[10JQKA]

https://news.defence.gov.au/media/media-releases/raaf-and-airservices-australia-re-design-military-training-area-airspace

Things gonna look very different in/out of SY to the NW and in/out of QLD to VIC/SA/WA for passenger jets very soon. One wonders how airline bean counters feel about long diversion routes and sub optimum levels for 26/52 weeks a year ?


So this now happening Nov 30th. Plus WM stars added and many other changes.

Do 3 split arse turns for a SY Wellcamp flight ( hard right near MDG to TW hard left TW to MOR hard right MOR to BN) or 2 for a ML Wellcamp (delete MDG turn) appear reasonable as a normal enroute high level flight planning route ? This just 1 of the highlights !

Massive route changes, massive increase in Mil areas and corridors.

Going to be a fun summer 23/24 storm season, throw in the odd TIBA here and there could make things interesting.

Guarranteed they haven't thought of that or give a ****.

[Lead Balloon]

The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and Airservices Australia (Airservices) have redesigned Defence’s overland military flying training area airspace in north-western New South Wales to replace the existing [Romeos].And there was me thinking that CASA, and only CASA, has the power to declare Romeos, because that's what the law says, and there is a criterion in that law as to the basis on which that power may be exercised.

[10JQKA]

So I think all the change documents on Nov30 are now published, new Mil areas central NSW, new routes in out SY and se qld to vic/sa/wa, new sids/stars/routes in out wlm ,e base 65 near wlm, new wlm Mil areas, new routes in out BK, etc etc etc.
Any questions ?
Storm season approaching get ready for a 5 min wait to work out which waypoint you can go to and then another 5 min to wait for bloke on other side of radio to work it out too in amongst 25 other pending requests and the odd 7700 squawk to enter Mil areas as no other options.

[Callsign Please]

Lucky SYD-MRZ is a subsidised route huh.
Hope the JSFs are allowed through TRAs to get to the playground!

[10JQKA]

Lucky SYD-MRZ is a subsidised route huh.
Hope the JSFs are allowed through TRAs to get to the playground!

Haha, but seriously I have never heard of anyone who wanted to enter a TRA/TIBA being declined/unauthorised/unapproved.
Is that really a thing ?

[sunnySA]

This airspace could send a mob like Bonza broke even before they start ! Imagine trying to get a Sunny Coast to Avalon/Albury/ Mildura flight through that obstacle course !
I pity the ATCs trying to make a silk purse out of that sow's ear of an airspace.
10JQKA Someone might be listening...
AIC H46/23 INTERIM ARRIVAL ROUTES INTO SYDNEY/KINGSFORD SMITH AIRPORT (YSSY) FROM NORTH WEST (https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/a23-h46.pdf)
Odd title for an AIC which contains relevant information about the new Restricted Areas to the North West of Sydney.
AIC is effective for just 23 hours, 202311291600 to 202311301500 however the significant route changes are forever.

FWIW, the NOTAM has been issued.
C3235/23
ALL ACFT ARRIVING YSSY BTN 231129 1600 AND 231130 1500 FM NW
MUST PLAN VIA SGE OR ROKUU THEN DCT SCO DCT IGDAM DCT SADLO
DCT BOREE DCT TESAT
ACFT USING 30 NOV 2023 AIRAC DATA PLAN AS PER ERSA.
REFER AIC H46/23 FOR FURTHER INFO
FROM 11 200215 TO 11 301500

No YBBB NOTAM has been issued to highlight the issue.

Such significant changes, no doubt all the affected Sector groups have had their simulator sessions highlighting to new points of conflict. It might take a while for the Contingency NOTAMS to be updated.

I'm guessing that Sydney Delivery on Thursday morning will be double staffed during the morning push with all the flights via Richmond.

[Willoz269]

10JQKA Someone might be listening...
AIC H46/23 INTERIM ARRIVAL ROUTES INTO SYDNEY/KINGSFORD SMITH AIRPORT (YSSY) FROM NORTH WEST (https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/a23-h46.pdf)
Odd title for an AIC which contains relevant information about the new Restricted Areas to the North West of Sydney.
AIC is effective for just 23 hours, 202311291600 to 202311301500 however the significant route changes are forever.

FWIW, the NOTAM has been issued.


No YBBB NOTAM has been issued to highlight the issue.

Such significant changes, no doubt all the affected Sector groups have had their simulator sessions highlighting to new points of conflict. It might take a while for the Contingency NOTAMS to be updated.

I'm guessing that Sydney Delivery on Thursday morning will be double staffed during the morning push with all the flights via Richmond.

the AIC is only for those aircraft that depart before 1600UTC and wont have the new database. They will be rerouted via waypoints that exist in the old database and the new database, that's why it is only active for 24 hours.

[sunnySA]

the AIC is only for those aircraft that depart before 1600UTC and wont have the new database. They will be rerouted via waypoints that exist in the old database and the new database, that's why it is only active for 24 hours.
I accept this however my point (poorly made) was that there is a lot of information in the AIC about the new Restricted Areas, new airspace arrangements, dimensions, shape etc that will disappear once the AIC expires.

[Willoz269]

I accept this however my point (poorly made) was that there is a lot of information in the AIC about the new Restricted Areas, new airspace arrangements, dimensions, shape etc that will disappear once the AIC expires.
Yup, that's what charts, ersa and lots of other official publications are for.

[10JQKA]

Yup, that's what charts, ersa and lots of other official publications are for.

Sure, but of course that is of little comfort to those stuck working in this woefully designed airspace dog's breakfast outcome.

There is a strip of airspace between the BN FIR and ML FIR between waypoint Mudgee and the next one NW that is 8nm wide and which will now carry all the N NW traffic ex SY (EUR,ME,Asia,Subcontinent,SE QLD, NT, FNQ) as there is no RIC NBR track anymore ! I've been told BN atc has to keep 2.5 from ML and 5nm from Mil and guess what ? the route has been drawn 3 from ML and 5 from Mil ! So a 1nm offset cannot even be quickly approved !

Unfortunately charts don't give a real flavour of what it might be like in there. Good luck.

[sunnySA]

Yup, that's what charts, ersa and lots of other official publications are for.
Fair enough, just follow the magenta line.

[missy]

I pity the ATCs trying to make a silk purse out of that sow's ear of an airspace.
Sorry, I should've paid more attention to this thread. I used to work this airspace, Sydney Sector 6 and I was one of the check controllers on this airspace. It was later split between Melbourne and Brisbane Centres, and Melbourne split the airspace into 2 or was it 3 or 4?

It's sad to see radical and arguably unnecessary permanent airspace arrangements. Airspace and air routes can and do change, in the 1980's ML to BN/CG to ML traffic used to use a reciprocal route. Then various other city pairings commenced, AD to BN/CG, and ML to CS etc, and traffic levels meant laterally separated routes. More point to point city parings, all these crossing over the SY to SE Asia traffic.

There is a strip of airspace between the BN FIR and ML FIR between waypoint Mudgee and the next one NW that is 8nm wide and which will now carry all the N NW traffic ex SY (EUR,ME,Asia,Subcontinent,SE QLD, NT, FNQ) as there is no RIC NBR track anymore ! I've been told BN atc has to keep 2.5 from ML and 5nm from Mil and guess what ? the route has been drawn 3 from ML and 5 from Mil !
Unfortunately charts don't give a real flavour of what it might be like in there.
I have reviewed the charts and some of the routes appear ill-conceived.

I'm sure the ATC's on the day will "make it work" but such an unnecessary imposition. The display ranges used by these Sector Groups will make it more difficult.

Good luck. Missy.

[sunnySA]

C3105/23
ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FLIGHT PLAN REQUIREMENTS SECTION 1.1 AMD
1.1 SYDNEY DEPARTURES - JETS - NORTH WEST
REMOVE PLAN VIA ROC H530 TO KABIX
ADD PLAN VIA RIC H530 TO KABIX

1.1 SYDNEY DEPARTURES - JETS - NORTH (PORTS TO YBSU)
REMOVE OLSEM H252 UPNEX. VERTICAL REQUIREMENTS APPLY REFER AIP DAP
BLW FL270 OR UNABLE TO MEET VERTICAL REQUIREMENTS MUST PLAN UPNEX
H140 MATLA
ADD OLSEM Y193 BANDA. VERTICAL REQUIREMENTS APPLY REFER AIP DAP
BLW FL250 OR UNABLE TO MEET VERTICAL REQUIREMENTS MUST PLAN OLSEM
H252 UPNEX H140 MATLA
FROM 11 291600 TO PERM
Problem solved!

[sunnySA]

Sure, but of course that is of little comfort to those stuck working in this woefully designed airspace dog's breakfast outcome.

There is a strip of airspace between the BN FIR and ML FIR between waypoint Mudgee and the next one NW that is 8nm wide and which will now carry all the N NW traffic ex SY (EUR,ME,Asia,Subcontinent,SE QLD, NT, FNQ) as there is no RIC NBR track anymore ! I've been told BN atc has to keep 2.5 from ML and 5nm from Mil and guess what ? the route has been drawn 3 from ML and 5 from Mil ! So a 1nm offset cannot even be quickly approved !

Unfortunately charts don't give a real flavour of what it might be like in there. Good luck.

Maybe BN ATC can use 2.5NM from MIL
MATS changes (version 66)
Expands the use of half the applicable ATS surveillance system separation minimum from a system displayed map boundary to include when the boundary is with military controlled airspace or control zone.

[DROPS]

So how did it all go?

[10JQKA]

It's like walking a 1000kg gorilla around on a leash that you know at some point will take off on you ! but it won't be evident to operators until WLM areas come back for real (F360/F600 LUL) mid Jan 24, in the meantime enjoy the track shortenings, and WLM stars, tra/tibas and don't tease the gorilla.

[10JQKA]

We will all get our 1st look at the Nov 30 NSW new mil areas tomorrow. 2130-0600 utc A100-F580. Would be good to get feedback on it.

[sunnySA]

C19/24
R570A ACT (RA2)
W658 NOT AVAILABLE FOR FLIGHT PLANNING A100 OR ABV
REFER TO ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FPL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
ROUTES
10000FT AMSL TO FL360
FROM 02 192130 TO 02 220600
2402192130 TO 2402200600
2402202130 TO 2402210600
2402212130 TO 2402220600

C20/24
R570B ACT (RA2)
Q238 AND Q293 NOT AVAILABLE FOR FLIGHT PLANNING A100 OR ABV
REFER TO ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FPL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
ROUTES
10000FT AMSL TO FL360
FROM 02 192130 TO 02 220600
2402192130 TO 2402200600
2402202130 TO 2402210600
2402212130 TO 2402220600

C13/24
R570C ACT (RA2)
Y46 AND Q16 NOT AVAILABLE FOR FLIGHT PLANNING A100 OR ABV
REFER TO ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FPL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
ROUTES
10000FT AMSL TO FL360
FROM 02 192130 TO 02 220600
2402192130 TO 2402200600
2402202130 TO 2402210600
2402212130 TO 2402220600

C14/24
R570D ACT (RA2)
Q238, Q293, Q16 AND Y46 NOT AVAILABLE FOR FLIGHT PLANNING A100 OR ABV
REFER TO ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FPL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
ROUTES
10000FT AMSL TO FL360
FROM 02 192130 TO 02 220600
2402192130 TO 2402200600
2402202130 TO 2402210600
2402212130 TO 2402220600

C23/24
R570E ACT (RA2)
REFER TO ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FPL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
ROUTES
FL360 TO FL580
FROM 02 192130 TO 02 220600
2402192130 TO 2402200600
2402202130 TO 2402210600
2402212130 TO 2402220600

C22/24
R570F ACT (RA2)
Q238 AND Q293 NOT AVAILABLE FOR FLIGHT PLANNING A100 OR ABV
REFER TO ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FPL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
ROUTES
FL360 TO FL580
FROM 02 192130 TO 02 220600
2402192130 TO 2402200600
2402202130 TO 2402210600
2402212130 TO 2402220600

C25/24
R570G ACT (RA2)
Y46 AND Q16 NOT AVAILABLE FOR FLIGHT PLANNING A100 OR ABV
REFER TO ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FPL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
ROUTES
FL360 TO FL580
FROM 02 192130 TO 02 220600
2402192130 TO 2402200600
2402202130 TO 2402210600
2402212130 TO 2402220600

C26/24
R570H ACT (RA2)
Q238, Q293, Q16 AND Y46 NOT AVAILABLE FOR FLIGHT PLANNING A100 OR ABV
REFER TO ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FPL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
ROUTES
FL360 TO FL580
FROM 02 192130 TO 02 220600
2402192130 TO 2402200600
2402202130 TO 2402210600
2402212130 TO 2402220600
Daily 2130 to 0600. How many times will these NOTAMs be amended? Asking for a friend...

[sunnySA]

C34/24 REVIEW C26/24
R570H ACT (RA2)
Q238, Q293, Q16 AND Y46 NOT AVAILABLE FOR FLIGHT PLANNING A100 OR ABV
REFER TO ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FPL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
ROUTES
FL360 TO FL580
FROM 02 202130 TO 02 220600
2402202130 TO 2402210600
2402212130 TO 2402220600

C33/24 REVIEW C25/24
R570G ACT (RA2)
Y46 AND Q16 NOT AVAILABLE FOR FLIGHT PLANNING A100 OR ABV
REFER TO ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FPL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
ROUTES
FL360 TO FL580
FROM 02 202130 TO 02 220600
2402202130 TO 2402210600
2402212130 TO 2402220600

C32/24 REVIEW C22/24
R570F ACT (RA2)
Q238 AND Q293 NOT AVAILABLE FOR FLIGHT PLANNING A100 OR ABV
REFER TO ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FPL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
ROUTES
FL360 TO FL580
FROM 02 202130 TO 02 220600
2402202130 TO 2402210600
2402212130 TO 2402220600

C31/24 REVIEW C23/24
R570E ACT (RA2)
REFER TO ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FPL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
ROUTES
FL360 TO FL580
FROM 02 202130 TO 02 220600
2402202130 TO 2402210600
2402212130 TO 2402220600

C29/24 REVIEW C14/24
R570D ACT (RA2)
Q238, Q293, Q16 AND Y46 NOT AVAILABLE FOR FLIGHT PLANNING A100 OR ABV
REFER TO ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FPL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
ROUTES
10000FT AMSL TO FL360
FROM 02 202130 TO 02 220600
2402202130 TO 2402210600
2402212130 TO 2402220600

C28/24 REVIEW C13/24
R570C ACT (RA2)
Y46 AND Q16 NOT AVAILABLE FOR FLIGHT PLANNING A100 OR ABV
REFER TO ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FPL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
ROUTES
10000FT AMSL TO FL360
FROM 02 202130 TO 02 220600
2402202130 TO 2402210600
2402212130 TO 2402220600

C30/24 REVIEW C20/24
R570B ACT (RA2)
Q238 AND Q293 NOT AVAILABLE FOR FLIGHT PLANNING A100 OR ABV
REFER TO ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FPL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
ROUTES
10000FT AMSL TO FL360
FROM 02 202130 TO 02 220600
2402202130 TO 2402210600
2402212130 TO 2402220600

C27/24 REVIEW C19/24
R570A ACT (RA2)
W658 NOT AVAILABLE FOR FLIGHT PLANNING A100 OR ABV
REFER TO ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FPL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
ROUTES
10000FT AMSL TO FL360
FROM 02 202130 TO 02 220600
2402202130 TO 2402210600
2402212130 TO 2402220600
WWX'd

[sunnySA]

C68/24 REVIEW C50/24
R570H ACT (RA2)
Q238, Q293, Q16 AND Y46 NOT AVAILABLE FOR FLIGHT PLANNING A100 OR ABV
REFER TO ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FPL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
ROUTES
FL360 TO FL580
FROM 02 212130 TO 02 220600
2402212130 TO 2402220600

C67/24 REVIEW C49/24
R570G ACT (RA2)
Y46 AND Q16 NOT AVAILABLE FOR FLIGHT PLANNING A100 OR ABV
REFER TO ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FPL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
ROUTES
FL360 TO FL580
FROM 02 212130 TO 02 220600
2402212130 TO 2402220600

C66/24 REVIEW C48/24
R570F ACT (RA2)
Q238 AND Q293 NOT AVAILABLE FOR FLIGHT PLANNING A100 OR ABV
REFER TO ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FPL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
ROUTES
FL360 TO FL580
FROM 02 212130 TO 02 220600
2402212130 TO 2402220600

C65/24 REVIEW C47/24
R570E ACT (RA2)
REFER TO ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FPL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
ROUTES
FL360 TO FL580
FROM 02 212130 TO 02 220600
2402212130 TO 2402220600

C64/24 REVIEW C46/24
R570D ACT (RA2)
Q238, Q293, Q16 AND Y46 NOT AVAILABLE FOR FLIGHT PLANNING A100 OR ABV
REFER TO ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FPL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
ROUTES
10000FT AMSL TO FL360
FROM 02 212130 TO 02 220600
2402212130 TO 2402220600

C63/24 REVIEW C45/24
R570C ACT (RA2)
Y46 AND Q16 NOT AVAILABLE FOR FLIGHT PLANNING A100 OR ABV
REFER TO ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FPL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
ROUTES
10000FT AMSL TO FL360
FROM 02 212130 TO 02 220600
2402212130 TO 2402220600

C62/24 REVIEW C44/24
R570B ACT (RA2)
Q238 AND Q293 NOT AVAILABLE FOR FLIGHT PLANNING A100 OR ABV
REFER TO ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FPL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
ROUTES
10000FT AMSL TO FL360
FROM 02 212130 TO 02 220600
2402212130 TO 2402220600

C61/24 REVIEW C43/24
R570A ACT (RA2)
W658 NOT AVAILABLE FOR FLIGHT PLANNING A100 OR ABV
REFER TO ENR SUP AUSTRALIA (ERSA) FPL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
ROUTES
10000FT AMSL TO FL360
FROM 02 212130 TO 02 220600
2402212130 TO 2402220600
WWX'd again.

[sunnySA]

How many times will these NOTAMs be amended?
It seems that 3 is the answer.

What don't they just issue 3 NOTAMs, one for each flying day?

[10JQKA]

JSF NSW areas R560/R570 notams for this week Mon-Thur 2230-0600 up to FL600.
any feedback welcome