Not True.
I'm led to belive that may pilots are of the opinion that RHS may not be appropriately licenced to fly any aircraft at all!! Could it be that the ATC staff a WLM do not wish to facilitate such a flagrant violation of CASRs. Perhaps they believe in the concept of affordable safety. It must be that they feel that it is safer to keep RHS out of mil restricted airspace and they have heard that he can afford it.

Could it be that RAAF ATC hierarchy are not at work but rather on the densely packed beach at Nobby's. Surely they must have observed RHS conducting orbits where the turns were very poorly balanced and the aircraft was consistently at risk of stall. Surely these spineless incompetents must come to the realisation that RHS needs more holding practice.

Again, not true.

Please God, no.
:yuk:

Dick you contradict yourself again. In the first paragraph you assert that the RAAF are 'so paranoid about safety and collision prevention' yet elsewhere you suggest that Air Force is so complacent about safety as to not provide an ATC service on weekends.

Green on, Go!, the humour is OK, however this is quite a serious matter. Does it seem logical to you that there would be an increase in VFR traffic through Williamtown on the weekends when most VFR pilots fly? How could anyone measure this increase when no clearance is required?

By the way, I’m not contradicting myself – I’m simply pointing out the contradiction of holding aircraft outside the zone on one minute, then providing no service at all the next.

There are many people reading this thread who are as horrified as I am with the present situation – where it appears that the industry has been completely let down by the regulator.

Quite So
 

But how do you fix it? The draft part 71 is in hiatus (back to the drawing board).

Dick you seem to think the stuff used in the very early 90's is still acceptable justification; despite the regulations/rules/laws/understanding of risk, regarding airspace totally changing.

The OAR is now the 'body' that determines airspace; what charter/mantra do they have to really do it? If they had a 'Part' to work with then perhaps they could apply it; take the YMAV example; you caused the previous minister embarrassment and he demanded that they look into it (triggered a study); is this the plan now with the new minister and YWLM?

On the YMAV study; will it give you the answer you wanted?

It's more than just pax numbers (and you know it); it's total movements GA & RPT, terrain, airspace complexities/complications (such as why we have a TWR at YMEN) as well that must be examined.

I'm not saying I disagree with change, I'm all for it, but it would be nice if we had a simple consistent approach; it's incredulous that Qantas stopped flying to Perth in the middle of the night due no ATC on Perth Approach when there were 8 movements forecast, but they fly unabated to many other Class G only locations. Perhaps Qantas thinks DTI is safer than TIBA/TRA?

SM4 Pirate, the modern aviation countries that I know of do not have a hard written “trigger” to instigate a safety study for providing a manned tower at what was previously uncontrolled airspace. They simply use professional judgment and commonsense. That is what we used in the past.

The USA establishment and disestablishment formula does not have a trigger number for the study to be instigated. It is simply done by the judgment of those involved.

If you look at Draft Part 71, the trigger figures were so high that in most cases the study would never be done. Commonsense alone says that if you have over 1 million passengers at an airport that it would be worthwhile spending the small amount of money in performing the approved Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria for Airport Traffic Control Towers study.

The Office of Airspace Regulation at CASA can do this at any time, but for some reason they have steadfastly resisted. They are even working on a completely new cost benefit study for these Class D towers, when a perfectly satisfactory one (that has been used for many years) already exists.

I reckon it is all about stopping any change at all, so those responsible will not be held accountable. Of course it won’t work out this way if an accident happens.

I agree with your comments about Qantas. Once again, the whole system seems to be on a “don’t change anything” approach, rather than objective decision making.

I say again, a proven document exists which takes into account many relevant details that would objectively show whether it was cost effective to provide Class D airspace and a tower at Avalon and Williamtown. The study could be done in probably one or two weeks, however this has been resisted.

The US is performing establishment and discontinuance studies all the time and they have seen no reason to change their approach.