Move RAAF/SAF Pearce To Learmonth/Curtin...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Move RAAF/SAF Pearce To Learmonth/Curtin...
I have said it for years...move RAAF Pearce to Learmonth. 300 plus days of sunshine a year..... finally use a taxpayer funded airforce base that never gets used (except the swimming pool)....what does this achieve:
returns the much needed airspace to the taxpayer
will reduce congestion at Perth by allowing random departure arrive tracks
save the airlines millions $$$$
gets all those low flying PC9's and Singapore AF jets out of the SW land division
would allow Gingin to become the new Jandakot further freeing up airspace and reducing noise issues
Both airforces get 300 plus days a year of sunshine for training
etc etc etc
returns the much needed airspace to the taxpayer
will reduce congestion at Perth by allowing random departure arrive tracks
save the airlines millions $$$$
gets all those low flying PC9's and Singapore AF jets out of the SW land division
would allow Gingin to become the new Jandakot further freeing up airspace and reducing noise issues
Both airforces get 300 plus days a year of sunshine for training
etc etc etc
Ah spoken like a true serviceman or woman...
Could you explain WHY it is not possible? Richmond, Townsville, Darwin and Williamtown are all JOINT USER facilities... perhaps this is the first step, open Pearce up to civil users, then look at the move.
Why couldn't the operations that are currently located at Pearce be relocated to Learmonth? Oh I forgot, the brass want to live in a capital city, not the regional areas.
Do you have any idea how much fuel gets wasted every day diverting aircraft around Pearce?
Could you explain WHY it is not possible? Richmond, Townsville, Darwin and Williamtown are all JOINT USER facilities... perhaps this is the first step, open Pearce up to civil users, then look at the move.
Why couldn't the operations that are currently located at Pearce be relocated to Learmonth? Oh I forgot, the brass want to live in a capital city, not the regional areas.
Do you have any idea how much fuel gets wasted every day diverting aircraft around Pearce?
Originally posted on another thread but appropriate here!
Why should the RAAF (ie taxpayers) have to fund the massive costs of relocating the training infrastructure to an airfield that has been set up as an operational military base? Curtin does not have a satelite airfield like Gin Gin so a new one would have to be constructed. The RAAF has been at Pearce long before the majority of commercial operators started services.
The sensible thing to do is work out a more efficient use of Perth airspace and Air traffic procedures to get the most efficient outcome for all airspace users.
The sensible thing to do is work out a more efficient use of Perth airspace and Air traffic procedures to get the most efficient outcome for all airspace users.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the late '90s there was talk of moving a fighter squadron up to Tindal in order to ease congestion at Willy. The reason the concept was axed? Katherine did/does not have the infrastructure to support the influx of several hundred people at once. Defence could support the move, however, healthcare and hospitals, housing, education, private enterprise for spousal employment etc dollars don't come from the defence budget (not my words, I'm paraphrasing the CAF of the day).
Notwithstanding our contractual arrangement with the RSAF, I'd imagine there'd be similar issues moving an even larger amount of people to Learmonth.
Does anyone remember the Dubbo superbase concept?
Notwithstanding our contractual arrangement with the RSAF, I'd imagine there'd be similar issues moving an even larger amount of people to Learmonth.
Does anyone remember the Dubbo superbase concept?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: somewhere in the "Islamic Republic" of Bankstown
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICARUS
Partly right - ex RAAF, and now with many more years out of the service than I was in. As 'GB' rightly points out, the RAAF have been training at Pearce since long before airspace usage was ever an issue. 'GB' makes a good point re joint user aerodromes and this apparently works pretty well at Darwin and Townsville, but I doubt that extensive ab-initio civil training at Williamtown, in the likes of Cessnas & Pipers would be either safe or practical. The same applies at Pearce where you would have low experience military pilots, flying high performance pseudo fighter type acft mixing it with similarly inexperienced civil students in their much slower training machines - may I suggest that it would be a bit like running a bicycle road race on the Mount Panorama track while the V8 Super Cars were also doing their thing. Not only different performance and vehicles, but also different rules of operation. As far as Richmond is concerned, it is not a true 'joint user' aerodrome as the only civil training permitted is ILS approaches. These require prior approval and be followed by a missed approach. Circuit training by civil aircraft is not permitted, except by the base's own aero club at weekends and in periods of reduced military activity.
Military airspace is not, by the way, sacrosanct! It is continually under review by a number of agencies, one being the RACS Committee which comprises of airspace experts from RAN, Army, RAAF, CASA and Airservices Australia.
Partly right - ex RAAF, and now with many more years out of the service than I was in. As 'GB' rightly points out, the RAAF have been training at Pearce since long before airspace usage was ever an issue. 'GB' makes a good point re joint user aerodromes and this apparently works pretty well at Darwin and Townsville, but I doubt that extensive ab-initio civil training at Williamtown, in the likes of Cessnas & Pipers would be either safe or practical. The same applies at Pearce where you would have low experience military pilots, flying high performance pseudo fighter type acft mixing it with similarly inexperienced civil students in their much slower training machines - may I suggest that it would be a bit like running a bicycle road race on the Mount Panorama track while the V8 Super Cars were also doing their thing. Not only different performance and vehicles, but also different rules of operation. As far as Richmond is concerned, it is not a true 'joint user' aerodrome as the only civil training permitted is ILS approaches. These require prior approval and be followed by a missed approach. Circuit training by civil aircraft is not permitted, except by the base's own aero club at weekends and in periods of reduced military activity.
Military airspace is not, by the way, sacrosanct! It is continually under review by a number of agencies, one being the RACS Committee which comprises of airspace experts from RAN, Army, RAAF, CASA and Airservices Australia.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Jandakot, WA
Age: 24
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh I forgot, the brass want to live in a capital city, not the regional areas.
Do you have any idea how much fuel gets wasted every day diverting aircraft around Pearce?
The RAAF finds it hard to get and retain people as it is, the problem would be much worse if we had to live in a ****hole.
Face it Pearce is not moving anywhere soon.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heads Up RAAFY CHAPPYS !!
just maybe I know something that you don't know but you will OBEY orders when they come down....or is the RAAF just another government junkent ride?????? The TAXPAYER directs the RAAF not the other way round!!! If the public want the land for other purposes then so be it.
EMU,
Wrong. The congestion at Perth won't go away if Pearce is moved. The congestion is caused by the runway configuration and therefore capacity, as well as less than optimum sequencing due to the lack of radar and ADS-B coverage outside 200nm Perth.
All Pearce does is increase trackmiles for civil users.
will reduce congestion at Perth by allowing random departure arrive tracks
All Pearce does is increase trackmiles for civil users.
If you're in the military you pay tax, you have every right to an opinion on how that tax is spent.
The Navy have it sorted even better than the RAAF, Watsons Bay anyone?
The Navy have it sorted even better than the RAAF, Watsons Bay anyone?
There is no real need to move the base just change the airspace to the US sizes, ie a small control zone around Pearce/Gingin a 10nm circle or overlapping circles to 4000'AGL to cover both and then all the other high and low areas outside the zone covering the 2 fields can be reduced in size and turned into MOAs ie Military Operations Areas.
These are transparent to VFR who can opt to talk to radar for flight following and traffic alerting. They are open to IFR traffic IF the radar controllers can provide separation from the mil traffic.
Freakin simple and works here in US with a staggering amount of civilian and mil traffic.
Being on the coast any ACM dogfighting etc can be done offshore as could any work needing huge altitude assignments etc.
OR they can do it in remote areas overland as is done here.
I remember the RAAF always saying they and their students need "sterile airspace" for safety etc hence the enormous space they take up now and all the routing of civil traffic around these areas.
This is complete rubbish.
Civilian students need to learn how to fit in with and look out for other traffic from day 1. lesson 1 so they can too.
Pilots of Fighters of all types have been doing it here successfully for 50 yrs since jets were introduced let alone a PC 9 doing 240-270 kts.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN 25 FREAKIN YEARS PLUS that I have been flying.
Same story everywhere in Aust, Military taking up huge chunks of airspace completely unnecessarily just because that is the way it has always been done.
Lets move Australia into the 21st century and out of the 1950s mentality of entitlement and superiority that seems to pervade many areas of Australian aviation to this day.
Let all sides come together and find viable solutions ,based if necessary on overseas best practice instead of always staying with the status quo or trying to re invent the wheel all over again at staggering cost and then using that as the reason as to why it cannot be changed.
OK rant over.
These are transparent to VFR who can opt to talk to radar for flight following and traffic alerting. They are open to IFR traffic IF the radar controllers can provide separation from the mil traffic.
Freakin simple and works here in US with a staggering amount of civilian and mil traffic.
Being on the coast any ACM dogfighting etc can be done offshore as could any work needing huge altitude assignments etc.
OR they can do it in remote areas overland as is done here.
I remember the RAAF always saying they and their students need "sterile airspace" for safety etc hence the enormous space they take up now and all the routing of civil traffic around these areas.
This is complete rubbish.
Civilian students need to learn how to fit in with and look out for other traffic from day 1. lesson 1 so they can too.
Pilots of Fighters of all types have been doing it here successfully for 50 yrs since jets were introduced let alone a PC 9 doing 240-270 kts.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN 25 FREAKIN YEARS PLUS that I have been flying.
Same story everywhere in Aust, Military taking up huge chunks of airspace completely unnecessarily just because that is the way it has always been done.
Lets move Australia into the 21st century and out of the 1950s mentality of entitlement and superiority that seems to pervade many areas of Australian aviation to this day.
Let all sides come together and find viable solutions ,based if necessary on overseas best practice instead of always staying with the status quo or trying to re invent the wheel all over again at staggering cost and then using that as the reason as to why it cannot be changed.
OK rant over.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Hear hear Aussie!
A lot more could be done, Williamtown/Richmond way as well...
A lot more could be done, Williamtown/Richmond way as well...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i remember in the late 80's when HMAS Platypus (submarine base at Neutral Bay) was earmarked for closure, the navy was fearful that HMAS Watson would shortly follow.(it has the best viewing wardroom in the world) the navy stacked the base with alot of high tech facilities to hopefully ward off the lefties. rest is history (for now!!!)
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aussie, great ideas re airspace use. The main problem at the moment with the fighter airspace around Willy is that the airspace is released en-mass to the fighter controllers who are not ATCers. Therefore, they cannot provide separation, and perhaps even traffic information. Re-training would be required for these people to allow them to perform these functions, as per the rules and regs we have for defence ATC.
Rumour has it that maybe, one day, 2FTS will be on the move to ESL!
And I agree, if you want to attract people to the job, the places one is forced to live have to be liveable. No offence to the people of the greater Curtin area. I'm sure it's lovely up there, but not everyone would agree.
Cheers,
NFR.
Rumour has it that maybe, one day, 2FTS will be on the move to ESL!
And I agree, if you want to attract people to the job, the places one is forced to live have to be liveable. No offence to the people of the greater Curtin area. I'm sure it's lovely up there, but not everyone would agree.
Cheers,
NFR.
Nunc est bibendum
Rumour has it that maybe, one day, 2FTS will be on the move to ESL!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know Keg, but the fact that the airspace is fairly out of the way and under-utilised is the trade off. As I said, rumour only. And for added amusement, Bairnsdale would become the 'Gin-Gin' satellite airfield.....
Cheers,
NFR.
Cheers,
NFR.
The rumour that I heard was that the Hawks might move to East Sale but the PC9's and the SAF aircraft would remain at Pearce. That might free up some airspace as the Hawks chew up a lot more airspace during their manoeuvres than the PC9.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: the fatigue curve
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you are suggesting that the Australian Gov't would pay compensation to the SAF for breaking their contract to conduct training at Pearce (not Learmonth).
I can't imagine that happening. Therefore Pearce isn't shifting anytime in the near future.
I can't imagine that happening. Therefore Pearce isn't shifting anytime in the near future.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Age: 54
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not meaning to be contentious in any way but if fuel is a problem just come in on weekends, they don't seem to be up to much then.
On a serious note, Learmonth would be infrastructure heavy with a rural town that is already stretched seasonaly. The Hawks seem to tool up there enough anyway with their cool call signs. Scary Snake 07 on final..
Anyone who's been to Curtin wouldn't torment our volunteers with a long stint and same again with exspensive infrastructure. That and Derby is not a place you'd want SAF to think of as Australia's cultural centre.
On a serious note, Learmonth would be infrastructure heavy with a rural town that is already stretched seasonaly. The Hawks seem to tool up there enough anyway with their cool call signs. Scary Snake 07 on final..
Anyone who's been to Curtin wouldn't torment our volunteers with a long stint and same again with exspensive infrastructure. That and Derby is not a place you'd want SAF to think of as Australia's cultural centre.