|
ATSB Concerned over Military Control Loss of Separation Events
Air safety investigators have raised concerns about the "relatively high" number of aircraft that have flown too close to one another in the country's military-controlled airspace. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has also warned that that existing laws do not give air safety regulator the Civil Aviation Safety Authority the teeth to provide sufficient oversight of civilian aircraft which fly under military air traffic control. The disproportionately high number of so-called "loss of separation" incidents in military airspace has prompted the Australian Transport Safety Bureau to urge the Department of Defence to "review all processes and controls in place for aircraft separation". In the wake of a spate of high-profile incidents, the ATSB released on Friday a 114-page report into so-called "loss of separation" cases between June 2008 and June 2012. Advertisement The bureau's report shows that a loss of separation incident between planes under air-traffic control in Australia occurs on average about once every three days. But the ATSB has emphasised that the rate of near misses due to civilian air traffic control is one of the lowest in the world. In almost 90 per cent of cases, the bureau said there "was no or a low risk of aircraft colliding", while only about six cases a year "represent an elevated safety risk". The report shows about half of the instances of aircraft flying too close to each other are due to air traffic controllers' actions, while the other half are the fault of pilots. However, the ATSB said the number of near misses in military-controlled airspace was "relatively high and most are the result of controller actions". "Darwin and Williamtown in particular were over-represented," the report said. While Airservices Australia monitors the bulk of this country's airspace, the Department of Defence oversees both civilian and military aircraft in airspace at Newcastle, Townsville and Darwin. The military controlled about a quarter of the total plane movements at airports such as Darwin and Townsville but were involved in 36 per cent of near-miss incidents during the period. ATSB chief commissioner Martin Dolan said Defence did not face the same level of scrutiny as Airservices, despite the fact it had multiple responsibilities keeping watch over both military and civilian planes. "CASA should be paying a bit more attention to military air traffic control," he said. "We are not saying there is a huge safety problem here, but there is a notable variation, so a somewhat increased level of risk associated with that military air traffic control." The ATSB has also released final reports into a near miss between a Virgin Australia plane and a Qantas 737 in South Australia in November 2011, and another incident involving an Etihad A340 and a Tiger Airways A320 in Western Australia two months later. Following the investigation into the Etihad and Tiger planes flying too close, the ATSB has taken Airservices to task over the limited formal guidance of new controllers. "We think more needs to be done ... [in how Airservices] monitor these newly endorsed controllers. We will wait to see how Airservices responds," Mr Dolan said. A so-called loss of separation occurs when two planes are within 305 metres vertically and 9.26 kilometres on a horizontal axis of each other. The latest ATSB research report into near misses compared Australia's air traffic control with a number of jurisdictions, including Canada, the United States and Europe. The release in July of a confidential report from CASA highlighted a spike in the number of aircraft that had flown too close to one another between late 2011 and early 2012. That report by CASA into Airservices, the government-owned company that manages Australian airspace, also raised concerns about air traffic controllers' experience and supervision. While Airservices has increased its total workforce by about 35 per cent in the past decade, the number of air traffic controllers has stayed static, at more than 900. In the same period, the number of aircraft movements has surged by about 27 per cent. Last week a preliminary report by ATSB investigators also revealed that the collision warning system on one of two Qantas A330s involved in a near miss near Adelaide last month was not working. The two Qantas jetliners were flying in opposite directions between Sydney and Perth on September 20 when they were involved in a loss of separation incident in airspace near Adelaide. However, the initial report made clear that the planes, which can carry up to 300 passengers, would not have collided even if they had continued on their paths before the alert. Read more: More planes fly too close under military control, Transport Safety Bureau warns While Airservices has increased its total workforce by about 35 per cent in the past decade, the number of air traffic controllers has stayed static, at more than 900. In the same period, the number of aircraft movements has surged by about 27 per cent. |
Dick,
27% increase in traffic. 35% increase in empire employees. Not one controller more over 10 years. Case rests. |
ATSB regrowing some cohunes!!
Planetalking on this subject:D: ATSB, CASA differ on military ATC safety oversight
It is without doubt refreshing to see that the bureau is again issuing relevant Safety Recommendations, nine for the LOS recently released reports, some of which are even addressed to Fort Fumble...:D However perhaps within Ben's article we can evidence why it was that the ATsB started shying away from sticking the boots into FF through the once obligatory SR..:ugh:: In terms of CASA’s mental barrier to crossing the military demarcation line, the reports says: As the function of CASA is that of maintaining, enhancing and promoting civil aviation safety in Australia, the results of this investigation suggest that CASA’s influence is not as effective as it could be when it comes to the safety of civilian aircraft, including passenger transport aircraft, in military controlled airspace and some level of independent assessment and assurance as to the safety of civil aircraft operations at DoD airports by CASA is warranted. CASA disagrees.The Report appears to predicate on the assumption that CASA should have oversight authority in respect of military air traffic services when civil traffic is present. However, no evidence or arguments are presented to support this as the most appropriate option. The tricky bit above is the ‘effective benefits’ CASA refers to. They don’t appear to effectively exist going on the public record of persistent military air traffic control failures in handling civilian airliners.
In the past, CASA has participated in Defence surveillance of military air traffic services. We have every intention of continuing to do so in the future. The Report fails to acknowledge that activity or the effective benefits it has produced. This ATSB investigation concluded that civilian aircraft have a disproportionate rate of loss of separation incidents which leads to a higher risk of collision in military terminal area airspace in general and all airspace around Darwin and Williamtown in particular. As the function of CASA is that of maintaining, enhancing and promoting civil aviation safety in Australia, the results of this investigation suggest that CASA’s influence is not as effective as it could be when it comes to the safety of civilian aircraft, including passenger transport aircraft, in military controlled airspace and some level of independent assessment and assurance as to the safety of civil aircraft operations at DoD airports by CASA is warranted. From: SI-2012-034-SI-02 Recommendation Action organisation:Civil Aviation Safety Authority Action number:AR-2012-034-SR-015 Date:18 October 2013 Action status:Released The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority should review the results of this report and determine whether its current level of involvement with Military air traffic services (ATS) is sufficient to assure itself that the safety of civil aircraft operations while under Military ATS control is adequate. see here: SRS addressed to CAsA |
I was told many years ago, if you **** up in civil airspace, it's likely your fault. In military airspace, their (atc's) fault. The shortcomings of military atc are no state secret, it's shameful CASA hasn't done anything sooner to improve the situation.
|
screwing the wrong pooch
Mail-man,
what is truly shameful is that the ADF has failed to do enough to improve the situation... But civil access to military infrastructure comes at a price - either increased risk at times or significant inconvenience. Your slant is a bit like telling your neighbour how often and how low to mow his lawn - the jurisdictional issues are clear to most observers. Military bases and airspace were typically closed to civilian use, one minor reason being the military wanted ATS flexibility in efficiently delivering the mission with the minimum of procedural constraint. That may now be part of the modern civil ATS mantra, but it is not part of the DNA or culture of civil ATC (both worldwide and historically). So now, by opening up to civil operations, should the military necessarily be forced to adopt those civil procedures and standards that interfere with their normal course of doing business? If you want to jump into your neighbour's backyard, remember that you are a guest and that his rules apply. Civil access to military infrastructure comes with the same proviso. Where the balance needs to be found is in those procedures and standards that have a minimal downside for military operations but significant upside for mixed operations. Stay Alive, |
I appreciate your point and If there were another darwin/townsville airport, i'd happily go there instead.
|
But civil access to military infrastructure comes at a price - either increased risk at times or significant inconvenience. |
Hogwash..
Civil operators pay money because they can make more money; they don't fly into Darwin/Williamtown/Townsville to make a loss!
As for.. If the military want their own systems they can pay for it out of their own budget and have the benefit of Military only zones. If it weren't for the 'can do' attitude and compromise by military personnel to do their best (always more with less!) acceding to the lobbying and political pressure for civil access, every military flying base would be safer without civil traffic in the mix. Finally, as for 'perpetual training', it's what tends to be necessary when an organisation's under-resourced/limited ATC staff do duties in Iraq/Afghanistan/disaster zones etc for long periods, and at their home base. All at the behest of a grateful nation. :rolleyes: |
Finally, as for 'perpetual training', it's what tends to be necessary when an organisation's under-resourced/limited ATC staff do duties in Iraq/Afghanistan/disaster zones etc for long periods, and at their home base. All at the behest of a grateful nation. If the ADF cannot provide the service they should give it back to ASA. And it's why, when they were built, military bases were generally where no other operator wanted to be; it also resulted in the benefit of their own CTZs. They do pay for it from their own budget! And it's why, when they were built, military bases were generally where no other operator wanted to be; it also resulted in the benefit of their own CTZs. |
Pffft.
No point missed!
I believe that if the ADF ATC were resourced in line with the increase in traffic at military airfields we wouldn't talking about this. ASA never 'had' Williamtown for example, and does ASA itself even have the staff for your simple plan? The reasons for base location are immaterial, and amount to the same outcome anyway so what's your point? And I said 'generally', or were Point Cook, Laverton, Amberley, Richmond, Pearce, Learmonth, Curtin, Weipa, Willamtown, Tindal, Edinburgh, Woomera & Oakey all desirable locations for civil hubs? With adequate resources, any problem has a solution. The point you seem to miss is that airlines and the tax payers would have to pay a lot more coin if it weren't for the ability to joint-use military facilities. (through either base relocations to even less desirable places, or completely new civil airports) Finally, to the assertion that the RAAF 'gain' from all this. Really? How much? Can you also comment on what is lost when the increasing civil movements impact on RAAF operations? I suspect you have little idea. :ugh: |
paying for service
Hey Nev,
Bit out of my knowledge base, but do the airlines pay the military for this stuff? I know they pay Airservices ( and handsomely, given the consistent monopoly profits) for all sorts of things, but I haven't heard of fees paid to the ADF - do you know what they're called or how they are designated? |
The Mil guys hold the same licences as the civil guys yes? If so, the standard of controlling aircraft should be the same. Sounds like a bunch of excuses here. Perhaps the training and licensing area of the Airforce is where the investigation should focus.
|
Who pays who and how much sounds like a bean counter issue, the only important fact is that Mil ATC are not up to the job and haven't been for many years. There are reasons for that and those reasons should have been dealt with years ago.
I recall an investigation into Darwin ATC around 1993 (I think), by BASI (back then) CASA (or whatever their name was that year) and the military them selves. Although the we (the complainants) were advised we would be privy to the outcome we weren't. I can only assume that was due to the results being worse than expected. Nothings changed. |
Nev
As much as you want to believe it the RAAF has had no gain from civvies flying into Willy. Its a PITA for everyone.
If the airlines are unhappy with the service I suggest they could provide their own infrastructure? |
A classic Downunder prune thread
A problem has been identified and two sides go to war A war with hissy fits and handbag throwing that is Anyone got any positive contribution, a way forward maybe, constructive suggestions? After all we are all on the same sides...except for the same tired old burnt out sad sacks chucking their toys out of the cot I should mention the biggest hissy fit has been the media release from the current CAF. I had more respect for him than that example of defensive PR spin |
Bit out of my knowledge base, but do the airlines pay the military for this stuff? I know they pay Airservices ( and handsomely, given the consistent monopoly profits) for all sorts of things, but I haven't heard of fees paid to the ADF - do you know what they're called or how they are designated? I would guess that the RAAF are paid by ASA or the airport to provide a ATC service. They would be considered a sub contractor as such. If they're not I would love to know where all the money goes for enroute and landing charges then. With adequate resources, any problem has a solution. The point you seem to miss is that airlines and the tax payers would have to pay a lot more coin if it weren't for the ability to joint-use military facilities. (through either base relocations to even less desirable places, or completely new civil airports) |
Here's the RAAF response:
ATSB report draws strong defence from RAAF over separation losses | Australian Aviation Magazine A report from research by the Australian Transportation Safety Bureau (ATSB) into loss of separation (LOS) incidents in Australian airspace has drawn immediate and strong defence from the operator of military airspace, in which the ATSB found a disproportionate level of LOS incidents over two years. The Bureau said “military controlled terminal area airspace in general, and all airspace around Darwin and Williamtown in particular, had a disproportionate rate of LOS for civilian aircraft. In an immediate response, Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Geoff Brown said the unique nature of military flying meant the ATSB report had unfairly compared civilian and military airspace. “I am disappointed that the report has chosen to concentrate on the loss of separation incidents in military airspace, and does not address the 80 per cent of loss of separation incidents that occur in civil air traffic control space, which is outside of Air Force’s control,” Brown said in a statement. The ATSB report showed that although there was an increase in the number of occurrences reported over the two years ending in June 2012, there were fewer LOS occurrences during that period than during 2005 to 2008. The Bureau noted that a LOS between aircraft under air traffic control jurisdiction happened on average about once every three days. “In almost 90 per cent of LOS occurrences, there was no or minimal risk of aircraft colliding,” the ATSB said. “On average, however, there are six occurrences per year where an elevated risk of collision exists.” The ATSB has issued recommendations to the Department of Defence to review all processes and controls in place for aircraft separation in military air traffic services and to CASA to review whether its current level of involvement with military ATS is sufficient to assure the safety of civil aircraft operations. “The factors which may make military airspace more dynamic and variable, do not necessarily make the airspace less safe,” Brown said. “The nature of military flying requires multiple aircraft flying in formation, making the airspace particularly crowded for brief periods. Other training such as formation flights and training for hostile situations are not encountered by civilian aircraft.” Brown noted the ATSB report found that military airspace only accounted for 20 per cent of LOS incidents and no evidence of fundamental deficiencies in the safety management of aircraft separation in Australia. Notwithstanding the sharp defence of the RAAF’s performance, Brown has committed to a review of air traffic management plans and airspace design for RAAF Bases Darwin, Townsville and Williamtown. These three bases integrate a large number of military and civil aircraft types, and the review “will ensure military airspace is more error resistant”. |
As an Ex WLM controller, tbh im surprised the report isnt more scathing.
Whilst I was at WLM i constantly wondered if today was the day for a serious incident. My job was to go in every day and prevent it from happening and keeping multiple customers happy. The response by defence was pretty typical of what the problem is, but lack the upper level management vision or courage to fix the issue. Controlling at WLM is hard. Its hard because SIDS and STARS dont exist, if you are controlling something it is on a vector, the aircraft within the airspace travel at vastly different speeds. You only have 25nm of airspace and dont get a 'handoff' for military aircraft returning from the training areas (that are on occasion doing 500kts or more at 25nm to run) That is impossible to sequence. The defence controllers there in my opinion to a pretty damn good job given what they are being asked to accomplish. They however are not being given the resources required to do it. And herein lies the problem. WLM has been understaffed since it began doing 16/7 operations. This affects controllers time on console (per shift), how long a break they get (between time on console), what sort of recreation leave they get. Given all that, WLM controllers in particular are working too hard, controlling for too long, are getting inadequate breaks and on top of all that, not getting the Rec leave they deserve. This makes a fatigued controller, and fatigued controllers make more errors. Defence could rectify the issue by posting in some staff to relieve the control and administration burden currently being placed on controllers (and managers) but since WLM has been functioning as a 16/7 airfield, defence leadership has simply failed to do it, and its continuing failure to do so is the biggest threat to aviation safety at Williamtown. A disclaimer: My experience was when I left that the current management at the unit was doing the best job that they could given the situation they were placed in by both the upper management and the previous management. This issue isnt going to be fixed by a stern talking to by the CO/OC of the Squadron/Wing, they need to actually do something to help the current workforce, not just expect them to ride out the storm that the controllers posted into Williamtown saw when they got there, and will probably remain there when they leave. |
Is this a real report? Or a backscratch for AsA to help justify the new ONE Sky project?
If you look at the graph on p19, it hardly looks like Military control services are a significant problem. The report data doesn't seem to match the rhetoric of the press release. Most LOS incidents seem to be civil and due to ATC workload - which takes us back to Jack Ranga's post. |
Shows how bias can be blinding...
If you can see any anything good out of that report for ASA then good luck to you To help you see the light Arko there were 2 other ATSB reports released that day blaming ASA for two LOS events. Seems like a poor way to try and create some agenda serving ASA...but a good way to take away your cred. |
CAF addressing SR but FF hmm..anyone's guess??
Although the Air Force Chief takes umbrage to certain inferences and methodology in the ATSB report he doesn't shirk the issue when it comes to the recommendation 'AR-2012-034-SR-014':
Safety issue description There was a disproportionate rate of loss of separation incidents which leads to a higher risk of collision in military terminal area airspace in general and all airspace around Darwin and Williamtown in particular. Furthermore, loss of separation incidents in military airspace more commonly involved contributing air traffic controller actions relative to equivalent civil airspace occurrences. Response to safety issue by Department of Defence The Department of Defence takes all losses of separation and losses of separation assurance seriously and investigates all incidents to identify causes and areas that can be improved in order to mitigate against further occurrences. To reduce the potential for separation occurrences, Defence are reviewing the implementation of the traffic management plans at Darwin, Townsville, and Williamtown to improve the effect of strategic separation techniques. These reviews will also be used to highlight any current airspace constructs that inhibit the controller’s ability to provide optimum separation assurance. Defence has also recently published an internal capability improvement plan that focuses on increasing experience levels at Defence air traffic locations. To improve our ability to respond to potential losses of separation, Defence has enhanced the School of Air Traffic Control simulator packages to provide greater exposure to compromised separation occurrences, with the trainee being assessed on their ability to apply compromised separation recovery. Defence has also added both theoretical and practical assessment to local training packages regarding scanning for possible losses of separation and applying compromised separation recovery techniques when required. ATSB comment in response The ATSB acknowledges the intended action by the Department of Defence, but considers that a broader review of Defence ATC processes and risk controls should be undertaken, including analysis of ATS related occurrence data, training, staffing and ATS infrastructure to ensure the reasons for the disproportionate risk of loss of separation incidents, and the relative higher level of controller actions contributing to these occurrences, are well understood and any additional appropriate action can be taken to minimise future risk. As such, the ATSB is issuing the following recommendation. Recommendation Action organisation:Department of DefenceAction number:AR-2012-034-SR-014Date:18 October 2013Action status:Released The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that the Department of Defence undertake a review of all processes and risk controls in place to reduce both the disproportionate risk of loss of separation incidents in military terminal area airspace in general and all airspace around Darwin and Williamtown in particular, and the relatively more common contributing air traffic controller actions. Notwithstanding the sharp defence of the RAAF’s performance, Brown has committed to a review of air traffic management plans and airspace design for RAAF Bases Darwin, Townsville and Williamtown. These three bases integrate a large number of military and civil aircraft types, and the review “will ensure military airspace is more error resistant”. Safety issue description Regulatory oversight processes for military air traffic services do not provide independent assessment and assurance as to the safety of civilian aircraft operations. Response to safety issue by Civil Aviation Safety Authority The Report appears to predicate on the assumption that CASA should have oversight authority in respect of military air traffic services when civil traffic is present. However, no evidence or arguments are presented to support this as the most appropriate option. In the past, CASA has participated in Defence surveillance of military air traffic services. We have every intention of continuing to do so in the future. The Report fails to acknowledge that activity or the effective benefits it has produced. The ATSB [draft] recommendation …. does not appear to take into consideration the benefit of joint work (such as that described in the bullet point above) that Airservices Australia (AsA), the Department of Defence (DoD) and CASA could undertake, without the need for CASA to assume formal oversight of DoD air traffic services. ATSB comment in response The ATSB acknowledges that CASA does have a standing invitation to attend operational evaluations of military ATC units conducted by the military ANSP's auditors, and have participated and plan to continue to participate in these. Such cooperation is important, but CASA remains limited in the level of influence it has over military ATS in relation to the safety of civilian aircraft using military airspace. This ATSB investigation concluded that civilian aircraft have a disproportionate rate of loss of separation incidents which leads to a higher risk of collision in military terminal area airspace in general and all airspace around Darwin and Williamtown in particular. As the function of CASA is that of maintaining, enhancing and promoting civil aviation safety in Australia, the results of this investigation suggest that CASA’s influence is not as effective as it could be when it comes to the safety of civilian aircraft, including passenger transport aircraft, in military controlled airspace and some level of independent assessment and assurance as to the safety of civil aircraft operations at DoD airports by CASA is warranted. As a result, the ATSB is issuing the following recommendation. Recommendation Action organisation:Civil Aviation Safety Authority Action number:AR-2012-034-SR-015 Date:18 October 2013 Action status: Released The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority should review the results of this report and determine whether its current level of involvement with Military air traffic services (ATS) is sufficient to assure itself that the safety of civil aircraft operations while under Military ATS control is adequate. Hmm...it also makes for an interesting scenario in regards to the Minister wanting to see if Richmond could possibly act as an interim civil airport while the 2nd Sydney Airport saga gets sorted...:rolleyes:...let's see Cost/Benefit & Safety Risk Analysis:ok: |
The runway allignments of Richmond and Sydney already cause problems, I seriously doubt that Richmond will be considered.
|
To help you see the light Arko there were 2 other ATSB reports released that day blaming ASA for two LOS events. |
More bad press for DoD!
SMH article:
Military air staff warn over safety Military air traffic controllers fear the long hours they spend in front of consoles and having to carry out other jobs while they are supposed to be resting is increasing fatigue to a level that compromises safety. After a report critical of the relatively high number of planes flying too close to each other in military-controlled air space, two former RAAF air traffic controllers have spoken out about the heavy workload and high staff turnover that have led to a lack of experienced personnel. The controllers, who spoke on condition of anonymity, highlighted the limitations of the military's ageing air traffic control system, which on several occasions at Williamtown in Newcastle this year has had to be shut down and restarted. In response to questions, the Defence Department confirmed the system was shut down for two days at Williamtown this year due to water entering communications cables after heavy rain. It said the RAAF stopped flying at the airport while the system was down and the airlines were informed. Military controllers manage both airline and RAAF aircraft at Williamtown. ''The civilian airliners are still getting a service, but to ignore the fact fatigue is impacting the level of safety, you can't. It is absolutely affecting safety,'' one controller said. Defence confirmed that ''system degradation'' caused a reduction in air traffic services on two other occasions this year but insisted it had ''no impact'' on safety. Fairfax Media has been told controllers have sometimes had to work another 10-hour shift just 10 hours after their last one ended. Civilian controllers work eight-hour shifts, but spend two hours in front of consoles directing planes, compared with up to four hours in the RAAF. ''When it gets busy, that is very, very fatiguing,'' a controller said. ''The peaks and troughs of the traffic come with the air combat group flying. As soon as the military fly, it can get very challenging, particularly when you are mixing it with civilian flying because you have such vastly different aircraft performance.'' Airservices Australia monitors the bulk of the country's airspace, but the Defence Department oversees both civilian and military aircraft in airspace at Newcastle, Townsville and Darwin. Williamtown is shared by the RAAF and airlines including Virgin Australia, Jetstar and Regional Express. On top of the time spent in front of consoles, RAAF controllers often have to carry out secondary duties during their official breaks. ''That would never happen on the civilian side of the street,'' the former controller said. ''Experience levels are quite low within the military ranks in general, even before adding to the fatigue issues and poor safety culture.'' The Defence Department said it has a shortage of controllers, but said flying schedules and rosters were ''synchronised to ensure aviation safety is maintained''. Perhaps FF should be taking little sister agency the ATsB AR-2012-034-SR-015 just a tad more seriously than their initial response :ugh:: The Report appears to predicate on the assumption that CASA should have oversight authority in respect of military air traffic services when civil traffic is present. However, no evidence or arguments are presented to support this as the most appropriate option. In the past, CASA has participated in Defence surveillance of military air traffic services. We have every intention of continuing to do so in the future. The Report fails to acknowledge that activity or the effective benefits it has produced. The ATSB [draft] recommendation …. does not appear to take into consideration the benefit of joint work (such as that described in the bullet point above) that Airservices Australia (AsA), the Department of Defence (DoD) and CASA could undertake, without the need for CASA to assume formal oversight of DoD air traffic services. |
I'm sure the RAAF have the appropriate numbers of ATC's, just like ASA has ;)
Maybe they are just in the wrong places? |
I find this fascinating. It looks as if no one knows how the AsA/Military charging works
In my day it was a type of barter system- totally unsatisfactory as AsA was supposed to run as business . I would imagine nothing has changed as no real leadership decisions take place. Come on. Someone must know how the charging works - why not let us know. |
I like the certainty that they proclaim civilian ATC's would never have to perform secondary tasks in their break.
|
Part of the problem could be an interface one. The military control system is different to AirServices. They are not on TAATS.
|
I'd like to be one of those civi controllers that only works 2 out of 8 hours on the console!
|
Charges
It's been a while since I researched it; however, charges at military bases used to work like this:
Like I said, this may have changed but not to my knowledge. |
Blast from the past, A.R.R.T report & R10!
Who ever said history never repeats??:rolleyes:
From the Dec 2007 Aviation Regulation Review Taskforce - Report : Military Airspace The Taskforce discussed an issue raised by various sectors of the aviation industry in relation to military aerodromes and civilian access to military airspace. The airspace and air traffic control service provision for civilian aircraft at Williamtown air base near Newcastle being a case in point. The Taskforce Members agreed that this had been an issue for quite some time and the risk profile of the aerodrome was increasing, noting the matter was complex with numerous significant stakeholders. The Taskforce agreed that the matter should be raised at very senior levels with the RAAF to ensure that a solution could be agreed and implemented as soon as possible. Given the history of this matter a solution will only be forthcoming if the respective Ministers oversee and reach agreement on a new approach. As part of these discussions, the safety of the travelling public at aerodromes such as Williamtown needs to be considered as the first priority, without limiting Regular Public Transport growth or necessarily changing the status of the aerodrome. Recommendation 10: The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government raise concerns about air traffic and airspace management at Williamtown and other military aerodromes with the Minister for Defence, to ensure that safe and reasonable practices are implemented to protect civilian aircraft and fare paying passengers in accordance with existing safety principles. "Dr Allan Hawke was appointed as Taskforce Chair. Initial membership comprised Mr Byron, Mr Rob Graham (aviation industry consultant), Mr Jeff Boyd (CEO, Brindabella Airlines) and Mr Dick Smith. Mr David Cox (QANTAS Executive General Manager, Engineering) was subsequently appointed to the Taskforce in July 2007." ....is it any wonder Dick sent this spray to BB a year later: Dick Smith's legal letter to CASA 9 December 2008 Gotta love Dick's passion if nothing else!:ok: |
I wonder if Military ATC's get crossover civilian experience at high density airports. I hear that Australian military ATC's are well respected overseas.
I flew in to YPDN 2 weeks ago as GA on a flight from Kunnunurra - the handling was fine except my flight notification got lost somewhere in between my lodging and the tower,and the poor ATC had enter it manually in between handling the other traffic. He apologised and stated the problem was at their end. Fortunately I made my call quite early ( which for light aircraft means about 50 NM) and there was plenty of time for him to manually re-enter the plan. Interestingly , despite it being a radar environment, he wanted a manual ETA. Nonetheless I have found Darwin tower very helpful on the several occasions i have contacted them about arrival and departure matters. Similarly with Williamtown, who were exemplary in allowing me to put down there once at very short notice in severely deteriorating weather. Perhaps at YWLM the controllers be given a significantly greater radius to increase the lead time for their sequencing of higher speed military aircraft - but I'm no expert.... |
1) Having no STARs into Willy town is a joke. Has to be first on the list for easing a controllers workload. Sequence all civvies to the south (overhead if arriving from the north) and all Mil guys to the north?
2) I know better than most how much Knuckle heads like to land with as close to minimum fuel as possible, but what about a requirement to up Bingo by 10 minutes during peak periods and rather than raging in at 500kts have standard speeds....maybe 350kts below 10,000. Would make sequencing easier. 3) Paint some F*%king proper lines on the runway and add lights that work so another Jet (Alliance in August) doesn't line up on the runway edge. GD |
I bet any money charged by defence doesn't end up in the defence's bank account. :hmm:
|
Gundog01 spot on, however need to add the lack of a dedicated ATIS frequency. Still can't believe in 2013 180 seat jets are getting the ATIS of the NDB.
The CTA step to the north is a problem and can easy lead you to an unstable approach. This problems at Willy is going to get worse with the push to expand the terminal and more civil flights. |
If I was an F18 pilot I'd want to smash into the circuit at 600kts (can they do that?) if I was a taxpayer I'd want those F18 pilots smashing into the circuit at 600kts. If they're saving my arse one day I want the bastards to do it at 600kts, not a pissy 350kts coz they've forgotten how to fly fast.
Get a grip, the RAAF own that airport, if you want to fly a piece of **** A320 into there and the boys in blue are inbound, too bad, you lose. You spin and wait. |
The reality is the RAAF share that airport and they don't own it, the Australian Government does, the RAAF are merely tenants. Therefore the government has a vested interest in making sure their jets don't run into any sort of civilian aircraft at 600kts with an under trained and over worked RAAF controller directing traffic. Other than for a bit of sport I can't see any reason in mixed traffic that a fighter needs to be doing Mach stupid in the TMA.
|
Originally Posted by Lookleft
Other than for a bit of sport I can't see any reason in mixed traffic that a fighter needs to be doing Mach stupid in the TMA.
Willy has always been a fighter base. It might be coined a joint-user airfield but the civvies are guests. Wartime Darwin/Tindal: "Despot Red, what's your ETA for a refuel and rebomb?" "It could be 1200, but we're limited to 350 all the way to fit in with the C-17s and Hercs so it'll be 1220". :} |
Do you fly passenger jets under sufferance Bloggsy? It may have escaped your notice but we are not at war with anyone at the moment where our fast jets are required so their training doesn't need to be at full throttle. If the knuckleheads want to beat up the circuit great but only operate civilian jets into there before 9:00 and after 5:00. We all know that's the only time a war will ever be fought on the East coast of Australia
|
Do you fly passenger jets under sufferance Bloggsy? It may have escaped your notice but we are not at war with anyone at the moment where our fast jets are required so their training doesn't need to be at full throttle. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:46. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.