Secret airspace meeting at Bankstown Airport

[Dick Smith]

Yesterday afternoon at Bankstown, there was a meeting to discuss the airspace changes necessary for the implementation of the Nancy Bird Walton Airport in western Sydney.

I was sent an email invitation, but unfortunately I could not go as attendance at the meeting required the signing of a “confidentiality agreement”. I have never signed one of those and I don’t intend to now, or in the future.

I would have thought the airspace discussion would be completely open – because when it comes to air safety, there should be no secrets.

Having been involved in airspace over the years, I can see that it will be a great challenge in getting an appropriate design. I just hope the powers that be have made use of airspace experts from the USA – especially those that are familiar with the airspace in the LA basin. After all, we copied the Victor lane and the helicopter lanes on Sydney Harbour from the USA and they seem to work satisfactorily.

I just hope it is not going to be an all Australian unique design that has no similarities to airspace used anywhere else in the world.

[Lead Balloon]

Can’t we just NOTAM it TIBA and plan accordingly?

[roundsounds]

I’m not surprised they’re secret meetings, there cannot be anything other than bad news for GA in the Sydney Basin.

[Mr Mossberg]

Say goodbye to traditional GA at Bankstown Dick, it'll be an emergency services, corporate jet and small capacity freight airport once Bird opens.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Hey Dick, can you please take this to the media. It is completely shameful that you have to sign a confidentiality agreement to discuss future airspace management. "confidentiality agreements" = "Dodgy"

[Vag277]

Who sent the invitation?

[Dick Smith]

Strangely the invitation did not come from the Airspace people at CASA but from the Department

It appears that now all the heads of the " letter" organisations know exactly what is planned but their members and typical Australians including the media are totally in the dark

[missy]

Yesterday afternoon at Bankstown, there was a meeting to discuss the airspace changes necessary for the implementation of the Nancy Bird Walton Airport in western Sydney.

I was sent an email invitation, but unfortunately I could not go as attendance at the meeting required the signing of a “confidentiality agreement”. I have never signed one of those and I don’t intend to now, or in the future.

I would have thought the airspace discussion would be completely open – because when it comes to air safety, there should be no secrets.Just publish the email invitation and your email declining the invitation. There should be no secrets.

[Ixixly]

Should have gone and leaked it via an anonymous source to the media, this just screams of them doing something dodgy now.

[Dick Smith]

Just as I don't sign non disclosure agreements I also don't publish private emails that are sent to me.
Nice try but sorry!

[Ixixly]

Private Emails are one thing, a meeting that absolutely should be public knowledge or at the very least not hidden away, I doubt anyone except for them would be against you leaking the details. Now we have no ideas at all unfortunately of the direction they're steering it in.

I'd say the next step would be to get some publicity around the secret meeting and see if the media can put some pressure on them to reveal the details

[andmiz]

Do you have any idea why a confidentiality agreement was forced, Dick? My first impression would be to prevent airspace design issues from leaking to the anti-aircraft-noise community, further clouding air safety design efforts. Either way, I don't see this working out well for Bankstown or GA.

[flyinghorseman]

Yesterday afternoon at Bankstown, there was a meeting to discuss the airspace changes necessary for the implementation of the Nancy Bird Walton Airport in western Sydney.

I was sent an email invitation, but unfortunately I could not go as attendance at the meeting required the signing of a “confidentiality agreement”. I have never signed one of those and I don’t intend to now, or in the future.

I would have thought the airspace discussion would be completely open – because when it comes to air safety, there should be no secrets.

Having been involved in airspace over the years, I can see that it will be a great challenge in getting an appropriate design. I just hope the powers that be have made use of airspace experts from the USA – especially those that are familiar with the airspace in the LA basin. After all, we copied the Victor lane and the helicopter lanes on Sydney Harbour from the USA and they seem to work satisfactorily.

I just hope it is not going to be an all Australian unique design that has no similarities to airspace used anywhere else in the world.

Dick,

If you have such an aversion to confidentiality agreements why did you insist on using them when negotiating contracts with your suppliers at Dick Smith Foods?

Just asking for a friend..

[Dick Smith]

Andmiz

Yes. That is likely the reason.
When I was involved in airspace design and changes it was known as the " poisoned chalice " within CAA/CASA and it destroyed a number of careers.

Remember that GA in Australia has virtually no political lobbying power.

[Dick Smith]

Flying. Your advice is incorrect. We did not have confidential agreements with DSF.

Also public airspace design and allocation can't remain secret for very long- one day pilots and ATCs need to be informed and it needs to be put on charts.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

because when it comes to air safety, there should be no secrets.
I doubt the meeting was about anything safety related. It would have been commercial related for sure.

[Geoff Fairless]

What a pity, Dick, I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall at that meeting!
Do you know who else was invited, or is that confidential too?
Ahh - GA, your taxpayer dollars at work!

[Dick Smith]

I understand all of the heads of the recreational and GA groups attended.

I am told that the proposal was considered a disaster by most of those present with lots more Class D controlled airspace with mandatory clearance requirements and flight planning for VFR.

It appears that the airspace is like nothing else anywhere else in the world. It was clear there had been no input from airspace experts in the USA.

[AOPA]

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia was invited to attend the briefing this past week, and it was on the condition that we signed an 'Acknowledgement of Confidentiality'. Apparently, the industry and aviation community consultation is so open and transparent that it has had to be done in secrecy...

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/712x1152/screenshot_2023_09_03_083106_8980dbfa6b8aac6c49d450c27a3c52c 6db9a1833.png

INVITATION WAS RECEIVED BY EMAIL

From: HAZE-MORAN, Joshua <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 11:46:35 AM
Cc: NAMGYAL, Danny <[email protected]>; West, Ellen <[email protected]>; SCARANO3, Kathryn <[email protected]>
Subject: Western Sydney Airport Airspace Briefing and Consultation [SEC=OFFICIAL:Sensitive]

OFFICIAL:Sensitive

Good Afternoon,

As you may be aware, the flight paths for Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport (WSI) have recently been released, and a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) will soon be released for public exhibition. As part of the implementation of WSI’s airspace and flight paths, some consequential changes to other aerodromes and Sydney Basin airspace will also be required.

The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (the department), along with Airservices Australia and CASA, will be holding a consultation session for airspace users in the Bankstown Airport Terminal on Thursday 31 August from 1-5pm.

This session will include an update on the WSI airspace project, and present the proposed changes to Sydney Basin airspace arrangements. We invite airspace users to attend to learn about the proposal, and provide your feedback.

As there are some aspects of the design which are not yet publicly available, we ask that all attendees sign and return the attached confidentiality acknowledgment form as a condition of entry to the meeting. Once you have signed and returned the form we will send further details, including the meeting agenda.

We understand that some of you may have already signed confidentiality agreements. If so, please let us know and we will send you details of the meeting.

We would greatly appreciate your attendance and feedback and look forward to seeing you there.

Regards,

Joshua Haze-Moran (he/him)
Policy Officer • Airspace Design • Western Sydney Airport Regulatory Policy Branch
International Aviation, Technology and Services Division

[email protected]
P +61 2 6274 8267

Ngunnawal Country
GPO Box 594 Canberra, ACT 2601

LGBTI Ally

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts
CONNECTING AUSTRALIANS • ENRICHING COMMUNITIES • EMPOWERING REGIONS

[Lead Balloon]

The only risk arising from exposure of the information is political and bureaucratic inconvenience. That’s not a valid ground for confidentiality.

[Dick Smith]

Seems more like Russia or China than Australia!

We did all the AMATS changes without even one secrecy agreement!

[Lead Balloon]

One wonders what law one would break if one disclosed information in ‘breach’ of the ‘acknowledgement’. And any person with any involvement in aviation will have at least a perceived conflict of interest in the subject matter. (Or maybe this is the first situation in history in which GA, RPT, airport operators and Airservices have had a group hug and are as one on the airspace arrangements?)

[aroa]

Seems like the cowardly bureaurats are taking us down the totalitarian path. He/him,she/her, it/er? The lot.

[Mr Mossberg]

You get all you need to know from that email signature :rolleyes:

[AOPA]

The meeting security was controlled via a check-in desk at the entrance to the meeting room. With a DITRDCA representative checking each person in and ensuring that they had signed and submitted their confidentiality document. It was clear that they did not intend to let any person into the room unless they had signed.

I did some background checking prior to the meeting and was informed that there were over 50 invitations issued for the meeting, comprising of several industry association representatives and a majority of local aviation business stakeholders. There was no list of invited stakeholders published.

On the day of the meeting, I counted only 25-30 of the invited 'stakeholders' attended the meeting, the following government and airport representatives were in attendance. Interestingly enough, the meeting agenda listed those persons out formally, but did not include the names of the invited stakeholders;

Daniel Jarosch, CEO Aeria Management Group (Formerly Sydney Metro Airports)
David Binskin, General Manager, Aeria Management Group
Danny Namgyal, DITRDCA (Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications & the Arts)
Ellen West, DITRDCA
Joshua Haze-Moran, DITRDCA
Matthew Shepherd, To70
Cameron Todd, To70
Anthony Nugent, CASA
Anthony Lawler, CASA
Alex Dallwitz, CASA
Phil Lee, CASA
Daniel Jackson, Airservices Australia
Rory Delaney, Airservices Australia
Annette Dittmar, Airservices Australia
Jerod Duenas, Airservices Australia

The meeting AGENDA was the following;

1. Welcome and Introductions 15min 1300-1315

2. Project Status Update 20min 1315-1335

3. Sydney Basin Airspace 45min 1335-1420
3.1 Bankstown Procedures
3.2 Camden Procedures
3.3 Westmead Procedure
3.4 Containment
3.5 Richmond Airspace

4. Proposed Airspace Classification 25min 1425-1445
4.1 Safety Case/Justification
4.2 Airspace Proposal

5. Flight Threads 60min 1445-1545
5.1 VFR Departures and Arrivals
5.2 VFR Transits
5.3 IFR Departures and Arrivals
5.4 IFR Transits
5.5 EMS VFR/IFR

6. Ideas and Comments 60min 1545-1645

7. Next Steps 15min 1645-1700

[AOPA]

Some general observations;

The meeting was delivered in the Bankstown Airport terminal building with three 80-inch LCD TV units used to present slides and maps. The lighting was such that the maps were quite hard to see and the colours used to delineate airspace boundaries etc were so bad that it was very difficult to see clearly what was being presented. No printed materials were provided.

A particular emphasis was placed on informing everyone in attendance that the meeting was not 'formal consultation', but was instead an opportunity to provide a more personal briefing ahead of the formal Environmental Impact Statement public consultation. Yet, at the same time the meeting was told that they were seeking feedback and would do their best to incorporate such feedback. In addition, an email address was provided at the end of the meeting, but the room was informed that they should not expect any response should they submit something, as this was not a formal consultation. The presenters stressed that stakeholders should use the EIS public consultation process which would start in the coming months.

It was incredibly clear to me that the airspace design had been settled quite some time ago and that they've been holding off communicating until the situation was entirely 'fait accompli'. Advance notice of what was disclosed would have 100% resulted in an effort by GA to involve the media and to lobby the politicians. The timing of the disclosure was everything. They have waited until everything was locked and loaded, and no matter how much noise is generated or how many politicians are approached, the airspace changes will happen. I back my own assessment up with statements made by the DITRDCA and Airservices/CASA representatives during the meeting that they had been running airspace simulation assessments for some time to test the outcome presented at the meeting. Yet, in the opening of the meeting the presenter advised the group that the final outcome had only recently been arrived at and that this was the earliest they could inform everyone of the airspace plan. My opinion is the statements did not add up.

I sat in the back of the meeting and to the side so that I could watch the entire presentation and audience. It was a very telling experience. Everyone on the left of the room was DITRDCA, Airservices, CASA and also had representatives of a Consulting company. The industry stakeholders sat in a congregated group in the centre, and the privatised airport representatives sat separated and at the rear of the room. There was clear and obvious separation from the three stakeholder groups, and I think that was rather intentional.

Throughout the meeting, the government representatives keenly observed the reactions of industry, with plenty of whispering into each others ears. My observation was that they were expecting a significant negative reaction. The DITRDCA presenters continually stated that they knew the GA stakeholders would not be happy with the information they were receiving. At times the DITRDCA presenter tried to make light-heated jokes in reaction to the somewhat startled and shocked reactions of the general aviation stakeholders. Numerous times the presenter lamented that he understood that those speaking weren't happy and that the news the room was being provided was not great.

At the conclusion of the meeting, and by way of observing the persons throughout, I left with the view that the privatised airport representatives had full knowledge of the airspace changes presented and that they too had been withholding this information from the general aviation industry stakeholders at Bankstown and Camden airports. And, I would assume for good reason. If leaseholders had been presented this information three years ago, I wonder how many would have renewed their leases? Furthermore, the aviation amenity and use of the airport will be dramatically negatively impacted as a result of these airspace changes and will unquestionably have a marked negative impact on the aviation property lease values at these airports. I can only assume that it has been in the commercial financial interests of the privatised airport operator to withhold any disclosure of these changes for as long as they could. This raises so many serious issues and red-flags. Have businesses been misinformed and drawn into leasing arrangements that are unconscionable... this needs to be explored.

Throughout the entire presentation the room was continually reminded on how deep and broad the consultation process was with industry stakeholders, yet by their own admissions and statements during the meeting they affirmed that they had hand-selected small representative groups, comprised of selected flight schools and/or operators during the design phase. Their statements were contradictory and following the meeting I was contacted by numerous persons asking if I knew of anyone that was involved in the consultation meetings mentioned etc. I am sure the consultative documentation will be an interesting FOI in the coming weeks.

[Dick Smith]

Amazing situation.

When will those effected know the facts?

Or do we need Wikileaks?

And this is supposed to be a rumour network- what then are the rumours?

[Ixixly]

Thanks so much AOPA, this is exactly what I was expecting from someone attending to provide us and you didn't disappoint but it's pretty clear these changes are going to disappoint many. Surely it's not too late to start kicking up a stink on this though? As you rightly mentioned it seems like stakeholders with very biased views have been consulted and were well aware of these situations but not the stakeholders that stood to lose on this such as the actual operators at Bankstown. This seems like a massive conflict of interest situation that they've created then purposely and maliciously withheld and should be held accountable for their actions now and asked who exactly they consulted with. I believe the answer to whom they consulted will turn out to be a whole lot of smoke and mirrors amounting to "No one that would actually be affected".

[missy]

Or do we need Wikileaks?
WikiLeaks was founded in 2006 by Julian Assange. AFAIK Julian is still in jail challenging extradition to the United States.
Free Julian Assange.

[Head..er..wind]

This sounds like a replica of the recent Canberra airport lies around runway 12. No, no you plebs are wrong, it’s got nothing to do with building more buildings; in fact it’s got nothing to do with the airport. Fast forward a year or so and boom! new buildings announced. Well phuck me, what a surprise. That’s how useful assets get ruined by rich pricks intent on getting richer.

[MalcolmReynolds]

Hazy Moron. Lol! 🤣

[Valdiviano]

Meanwhile…….Developers circling lower and lower……….

[megle2]

Likely Utopia were quietly sitting in getting some ideas

[Stationair8]

Did Bunnings have an invite to the meeting?

Say bye bye to Bankstown airport kiddies, it’s gone.

[Squawk7700]

I’m pleased that you attended and filled us all in. Thanks for taking one for the team as I don’t think you’ll get an invite to the next one!

[AOPA]

Squawk7700 you just highlighted a major problem that has done enormous damage to general aviation and is continuing to. Far too many supposed industry leaders and representatives are only interested in the next invitation. They attend these meetings and they do nothing to stand up for their members and industry colleagues. They sit in fear that if they speak up they will not be invited back. They have no backbone and they fail to stand up for what is right, their self-interest is always in the running. In fact, these people often lead the back-room efforts to degenerate and ostricise those who do speak up, encouraging the government towards such outcomes. For the 8 years I have represented our members, I have seen it time and time again with my own eyes.

[Dick Smith]

WikiLeaks was founded in 2006 by Julian Assange. AFAIK Julian is still in jail challenging extradition to the United States.
Free Julian Assange.Missy, I agree about Julian Assange. Here is a copy of an ad I have been running in The Australian.

[AOPA]

Have learned this morning that neither owners or operators of the Oaks Airfield or Wedderburn Airfield were invited to attend the 'consultation' meeting last week run by the DITRDCA/Airservices/CASA. Both airfields are directly impacted by the proposed airspace changes that will come into effect June 2026. I have also been made aware that neither airfield were invited to any of the 'broad and extensive consultation meetings' that the government claims to have worked through between 2017 and 2023.

I have lost count as to how many times AOPA Australia has publicly called out the Department, Airservices and CASA with respect to their so-called consultations and the genuine lack of genuine representative composition. Time and time again, these consultations are manipulated and gamed by the government.

But, is anyone surprised to learn this?

[Advance]

Many years ago I represented both AOPA and SAAA at some "consultation" meetings.
At one, every single industry representative (Qantas, Ansett, Regionals, Airports, AOPA, each of the sporting bodies - every single rep) was of one view yet Airservices simply ignored all of us without any explanation.
When every Australian airport went from Axxx to Yxxx industry universally wanted the US system where the last three letters of the code are both the IATA and ICAO code; KLAX, PHNL, KJFK, etc - only the first letter added for ICAO use.
That is worth a lot of money in the commercial world and saves a heck of a lot of confustion. So ASSY coulld have been YSYD etc, AMML > YMEL and so on.
Yes, Airservices pretended to consult with industry and ignored every single part of the industry.
Nothing changes.

[KRviator]

As told to me many moons ago during EBA shenanigans "Consultation is not Negotiation..."

They will always "consult". But they don't have to (and more often than not, won't) listen.....

[Ixixly]

Have learned this morning that neither owners or operators of the Oaks Airfield or Wedderburn Airfield were invited to attend the 'consultation' meeting last week run by the DITRDCA/Airservices/CASA. Both airfields are directly impacted by the proposed airspace changes that will come into effect June 2026. I have also been made aware that neither airfield were invited to any of the 'broad and extensive consultation meetings' that the government claims to have worked through between 2017 and 2023.

I have lost count as to how many times AOPA Australia has publicly called out the Department, Airservices and CASA with respect to their so-called consultations and the genuine lack of genuine representative composition. Time and time again, these consultations are manipulated and gamed by the government.

But, is anyone surprised to learn this?

So the only real options are that they're purposely leaving them out for malicious reasons, they're too stupid to realise that there are Aerodromes that will be affected or they simply "Forgot" to send the invites. I doubt it's Number 3 and I wouldn't be surprised if it was number 2 but whichever one it is they're completely incompetent and whoever is doing this "Consultation" should be refunding the money spent and thrown out the window.

[Squawk7700]

This sounds like it could be headed for a law suit, however you’d want some very deep pockets to attempt to do so.

[PiperCameron]

This sounds like it could be headed for a law suit, however you’d want some very deep pockets to attempt to do so.

..and you'd probably lose anyway. Don't forget that the reason behind all this "discussion" in the first place is the construction of Badgerys Creek International. And since that location was chosen after "exhaustive consultation" by various political persuasions over several decades, alteration of the nearby airspace to make it happen is in "Australia's interest" (or something fluffy like that :rolleyes:) - so no matter how much surrounding GA might stick their hands in the air and yell "but!.. but!!..", CASA, Airservices and various govt departments involved will all just claim they're just doing their jobs, go away.

A brand new International Airport in the middle of Class G airspace would be.. embarrassing!

It sucks - but we all know that whether you're riding a bicycle or flying an aircraft, no matter what the law says, if the Little Guy doesn't give way to the Big Guy, he'll get run over.

[cogwheel]

The Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR), the only section in CASA formed by Act of Parliament in 2007, is I understand responsible for all airspace decisions, not AsA or other sections of CASA. The OAR has within it representatives of the DoD (RAAF etc) but since it’s establishment and the more recent demise of the RAPACs it seems to have lost its authority to other managers in CASA who don’t seem to understand what it is all about. To add fuel to the fire AsA in recent times seems to want to do its own consultation to the exclusion of various interested aviation groups/identities. When the OAR was formed, there was discussion as to if it should be in CASA or the Dept of Transport - it went to CASA. Now the Dept has surfaced on this issue for unknown reasons or explanation. It seems to stink of political influence by folk with no operational knowledge or experience. It would have been more appropriate for the OAR to have called the meeting. (I would hope that they are intimately involved). Dick, you are correct in that discussions need to be about safety and fair and simple design.

[Lead Balloon]

It’s all politics: The politics of noise complaints and environmental activism. Those politics completely swamp any trivial considerations like the needs or facilitation of general aviation. Numerous important electorates need to be ‘massaged’.

The confidentiality facade is intended primarily to keep local residents and environmental activists in the dark for as long as practicable. Once the flight paths and noise maps become public, the ‘fun’ will begin. General aviation is minor collateral damage.

As noted earlier, it’s a fait accompli. There maybe some faux options to feed the chooks in a faux consultation process, but most of the detail has already been settled.

(BTW: There is no separate OAR ‘section’ of CASA created by an Act of Parliament. The Airspace Act (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00178) confers functions and powers on one person: “CASA”. The OAR is merely an artificial division created within (now) CASA and the name is a remnant of the previous arrangement wherein Airservices had the powers. OAR could be called ARSECLOWN and it would make no difference. ‘OAR’ is the same as ‘Avmed’. Just a name made up for administrative convenience. There is no power given to “Avmed” by Part 67 of CASR. It’s given to “CASA”. Then “CASA” - currently Ms Spence - decides to whom CASA will delegate CASA’s powers, whether that’s to issue a medical certificate or designate a volume of airspace.)

[CaptainMidnight]

Once the flight paths and noise maps become public, the ‘fun’ will begin. General aviation is minor collateral damage.
They were released back in June - Google "western Sydney airport flight paths".

[Advance]

Lead Balloon is spot on.
Flight Path and Procedures design is one of the most complex activities in Airspace Management and there are precious few people in this country actually competent to carry out the tasks.
I am both CPL (with instrument rating) and ATC licenced and experienced but I am sure as heck not qualified to carry out procedures design even in the SYD basin that I know well.
Skills needed include heavy aircraft instrument operations both normal and engine out, knowledge of modern avionics functional capability, database coding, deep knowledge of ICAO PANS/OPS, as well as discussions with Approach Controllers as to how any option would work in practical terms, and a lot more - it is genuinely complex stuff in design let alone reducing to charts and instructions.
CASA has at least one very highly qualifed and respected such prodedures designer/auditor (recently down from two).
I am not aware of any in the Department of everything and nor is there any reason they should employ such people even if they could find them.
So what on earth is the Department doing trying to run such a very technically complex issue other than imposing politics above both safety and access to airspace?

[PiperCameron]

So what on earth is the Department doing trying to run such a very technically complex issue other than imposing politics above both safety and access to airspace?

You've answered your own question - of course it's politics!

If there's anyone around CASA who does just happen to be good at Flight Path and Procedures Design there is no way they'll want them anywhere near this discussion. As I and others have posted above, the airspace design was finalised months ago.. this is the 'force-feeding it to the public' stage.

Just like the recent Master Plan issues at various airports, I'm sure there are ways to fight it (including but not limited to taking your complaint to the Minister) - but you can be sure the Department of Everything never run a race without a head start.

[Lead Balloon]

They were released back in June - Google "western Sydney airport flight paths".
Here’s what the Department’s website says about them, with my bolding:The preliminary flight paths for WSI will be assessed for their environmental impact under the Australian Government’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. A draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the preliminary flight paths will be released for public exhibition in the second half of 2023. The draft EIS will examine the noise, social and environmental impacts of the proposed flight paths and approvals will be subject to regulatory and community review and comment during the public exhibition period to guide the final flight path design.

In the lead up to the draft EIS being released, the preliminary flight paths are being designed and tested by an Expert Steering Group established by the Australian Government, which consists of technical experts and government agencies including the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Airservices Australia. For more information about the role, structure and governance of the Expert Steering Group, read the Terms of Reference PDF: 386 KBWe’ll see the extent to which the “preliminary” paths change as a consequence of the EIS process.

Having published the “preliminary” flight paths, the fun has therefore begun.

[Advance]

For those who think the flight paths have been released, try this:

https://www.wsiflightpaths.gov.au/resources/#flight-paths-brochure-section

now go down to where it says "Flight Path Design Process" and click on that.............

PAGE NOT FOUND.

So where are the actual details? Take off 05, turn left when? at 2000 ft, at 3 miles, ???? reach 5000 ft by one mile? Just minor interesting details sought.

[PiperCameron]

For those who think the flight paths have been released, try this:

https://www.wsiflightpaths.gov.au/resources/#flight-paths-brochure-section

now go down to where it says "Flight Path Design Process" and click on that.............

You mean this one? https://www.wsiflightpaths.gov.au/pdf-documents/WSI-developing-flight-paths.pdf

It doesn't say much - only that we won't know anything definite until detailed design (the paperwork generation stage) is complete sometime around 2026, and that "The community, aerodrome operators and airspace users will be consulted in determining the final flight paths." - that word "consulted" meaning what they're doing now ...but of course that they don't actually have to listen.

So enjoy your steep turns/stalls over WSI whilst you can! :)

[Advance]

Stalls and steep turns?
Nah. How about a repeat of Capt. Francis de Groot?
Formation touch and goes?

[PiperCameron]

Stalls and steep turns?
Nah. How about a repeat of Capt. Francis de Groot?
Formation touch and goes?

Sure! Just watch out for the witches hats and barrier tape. The last thing we need out there is any more LTIs..

[Dick Smith]

There has clearly been an airspace chart produced as that was shown at the meeting.

It appears there is lots of en route class D which was previously class G.

I have heard claims that VFR will have to flight plan and get an airway's clearance to get in and out of the lane at Parramatta.

Nothing like that at LAX!

Why the continuing secrecy?

Nancy Bird Walton airport will be Class C. That sounds logical.

[Lead Balloon]

You’re the only advocate for GA with any political power, Dick. It would be great if you could flush the details of the ‘proposed’ airspace boundaries and classes into the open.

[The Wawa Zone]

“confidentiality agreement”..

If this details SID and STAR tracks and operating hours it will affect real estate prices in underlying areas, so the secrecy is understandable.

[roundsounds]

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/828x646/img_8885_0748ba9720983469f4cd414d333cb1a1a2c6e404.jpeg
Not difficult to see what the WSI CTR will look like, simply copy YSSY and paste it in WSI.

[Lead Balloon]

Nah. All of the advances in technology over the last 30 or so years will mean the controlled airspace around YSSY, YSRI and YWSI will be smaller than the equivalents were 30 or so years ago and there will be VFR lanes across the top.

[Mr Mossberg]

VFR lanes across the top, very funny :D:}:D

[cogwheel]

There is no real need for the zone to be round as all approaches are straight in these days. A VFR lane over the top is indeed an option, just something new in Oz.

[sunnySA]

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/828x646/img_8885_0748ba9720983469f4cd414d333cb1a1a2c6e404.jpeg
Not difficult to see what the WSI CTR will look like, simply copy YSSY and paste it in WSI.
Big differences between KSA and WSI, crossing runways vs single runway alignment. VFR lane over the top of KSA would work in the 16 direction but not the 34 direction due to the 90 degree turns from both 34L and 34R, besides which there ain't many destinations east of Sydney (LHI?). WSI is another matter.
If KSA only operated parallel runways (and shutdown 07/25) then the CTR would be a different shape, except the Eastern Suburbs would lobby for a retention of existing shape to the North East.

[PiperCameron]

A VFR lane over the top is indeed an option, just something new in Oz.

Down here in YMML, the 'VFR Lane over the top" (technically for "training, survey and airwork flights") entry in ERSA states "Operations WI the lateral confines of the ML CTR should be conducted ABV A060. Lower altitudes may not be available or will incur extensive delays." so, no, not really new...

It's just difficult to see how anyone departing YSBK in anything other than a high-performance helo could possibly climb high enough overhead WSI to make use of any similar VFR "lane" without (a) annoying the neighbours, (b) infringing adjoining YSSY airspace or (c) burning a hole in their wallet sufficient to warrant going the long way around.

[PiperCameron]

If KSA only operated parallel runways (and shutdown 07/25) ...

Ooo, be careful what you wish for! That's a lot of nice International Terminal expansion and parking apron space you're talking about there :D

[PPRuNeUser0201]

A guy at the ‘secret meeting’ asked the question about a lane overhead WSI and was told there would be a lane, but it would only be open to EMS traffic. That is, Joe Punter will not be permitted to use it. The meeting was told the risk was too high for others to use.

if this is the case, EMS drivers must have a different Part 61 license than that what issued to me! (Note my sarcasm). But seriously, you either meet the standard for issue of a license or you don’t. It’ll be interesting to see if the mentioning of these lane operations will be a requirement within the EMS operators exposition as that is the only way I would suggest the ‘theory’ of increase risk could be mitigated!

[Lead Balloon]

That makes sense. Joe Punter in Australia is so much more stupid and prone to sudden incapacitation than their US equivalents who meander, gumby-like and gripping their palpitating chests, while over-flying LAX.

[PiperCameron]

That makes sense. Joe Punter in Australia is so much more stupid and prone to sudden incapacitation than their US equivalents who meander, gumby-like and gripping their palpitating chests, while over-flying LAX.

Whilst not exactly over-flying, it's not unknown for GA to "interfere" with ops at major airports here. Case in point being a Super Petrel forced-landing at KSA only just last month. From RAAus:

Approaching Jibbon Point, the pilot made a call on 120.8 advising Victor One traffic of their position and altitude. At Cronulla beach, the pilot started to feel a vibration that wasn't normal and the passenger, who was also a regular flyer, also made comment. They started to consider their options which included landing on Cronulla Beach or on the water at either Weeney or Botany Bay but at the same time the passenger asked if they should return. The pilot commenced a right hand turn as they believed the better option was staying in the Botany Bay area, then Sydney Tower and declared an emergency, squawked 7700 and advised them that they had engine vibrations and requested to Land at YSSY. The pilot suggested that a water landing on Botany Bay was possible but that a runway was the preferred option. The aircraft was cleared directly from its position in Victor One for a landing on 34L. At approx. 50' over the threshold of 34L the engine stopped but made an otherwise safe landing on the runway. Once stopped on the runway just north of B5 taxiway they were met by the RFS units. Shortly after an Airport vehicle recovered a blade that had detached at approximately the same time as the engine failed.

Of course it'd never turn out that nicely at LAX.

[Capt Fathom]

Whilst not exactly over-flying, it's not unknown for GA to "interfere" with ops at major airports here. Case in point being a Super Petrel forced-landing at KSA only just last month.
Of course it'd never turn out that nicely at LAX.

You can fly light aircraft into LAX.

[Mr Mossberg]

You will never have a problem from ATC if you declare a mayday. If you also state your requirements regarding the mayday it won't be questioned.

[Lead Balloon]

An aircraft suffered engine problems and landed safely at a nearby aerodrome, facilitated by ATC? I would have thought that that's what's supposed to happen. And the aircraft was apparently flying around, rather than over, that aerodrome. I would struggle to understand why that event would be construed as justification for not having an overhead lane, but then I remind myself that this is Australia.

[Mr Mossberg]

Lead, whilever an Australian is involved in ATC, airspace, regulation etc, there will never overhead lanes.