25 years of holding at Williamtown
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh NO! Not a Holt!
As a commercial airline pilot flying a redtail jet around our skies he has my full support.
I for one believe that Dick Smith is entirely on my side and supports my wishes to drag Australia's ridiculous airspace out of the 1950's.
In the 50's my dad was the flying doctor at Wyndham and flew first in an Avro Anson then later in a Dove. Oz airspace was basically controlled or uncontrolled. It wasn't til the 90s we went to the alphabet soup we have today.
Our airspace is a product of a number of inquiries, projects and consultations with industry. If you were to examine any country in the world, you will find that the airspace of all nations is designed with the local conditions, resources and aviation community in mind.
If you don't like our airspace make a submission to the government. A whinge on here is just all so much ranting.
Thread Starter
ozbiggles,
You state:
ozbiggles, in my experience the coal face workers support moving to modern proven international procedures. The ones I have spoken to do anyway. They are as frustrated as I am with the total lack of decision making of those in the top positions.
When we only have to see the absolute stuff up with the procurement policy of the military to see how, for some reason, competent people do not reach the top. It is obviously the people without ability who can get on in a bureaucracy. If this was not so, why wouldn’t they have someone posting on this thread, to state why they haven’t made the changes they believe in.
You state:
“I'm not talking about the people high up who make the decisions. I'm talking about the coal face workers. ie the ATCs in the area and the broader defence community, who would be more inclined to do what they can if you offered a polite point of view with practical suggestion.”
When we only have to see the absolute stuff up with the procurement policy of the military to see how, for some reason, competent people do not reach the top. It is obviously the people without ability who can get on in a bureaucracy. If this was not so, why wouldn’t they have someone posting on this thread, to state why they haven’t made the changes they believe in.
Thread Starter
Gundog01,
The audience I am trying to reach is the general flying community and the Australian public at large. Once this issue is widely communicated and people know how they are being let down I believe that eventually competent people will be placed in these important positions and decision making will take place.
On Australia Day just after 9.00 am, a VFR 182 south bound in the lane was held 9 miles from Williamtown orbiting over a rough ocean at 500 feet so the 182 could be “separated” from a Baron making a visual approach to runway 30. If the 182 had had an engine failure on any of the outbound legs which took it one mile from the beach at 500 feet it is most likely all lives would have been lost in the subsequent ditching.
Are these incompetent leaders going to wait for such an accident before making the changes. Probably.
I will say again that the controllers at Williamtown are as good as any in the world. They are being totally let down by the hierarchy. There have now been Over 12,000 “views” by people on this thread who now know how incompetent these military leaders are. It is not as if they say change is not necessary. I have had meetings with many of these leaders who have consistently said to me that they support change and it will happen. It is just that they do not appear to have the ability or the self confidence to be responsible for bringing in the changes and therefore being held accountable for an actual decision.
I can assure everyone I will never give up whilst the lives of Australian families are being unnecessarily endangered. I hope the changes are made before additional inevitable deaths occur. We have already had one ditching at Port Stephens with a pilot following the “lane”, luckily that one did not result in loss of life.
The audience I am trying to reach is the general flying community and the Australian public at large. Once this issue is widely communicated and people know how they are being let down I believe that eventually competent people will be placed in these important positions and decision making will take place.
On Australia Day just after 9.00 am, a VFR 182 south bound in the lane was held 9 miles from Williamtown orbiting over a rough ocean at 500 feet so the 182 could be “separated” from a Baron making a visual approach to runway 30. If the 182 had had an engine failure on any of the outbound legs which took it one mile from the beach at 500 feet it is most likely all lives would have been lost in the subsequent ditching.
Are these incompetent leaders going to wait for such an accident before making the changes. Probably.
I will say again that the controllers at Williamtown are as good as any in the world. They are being totally let down by the hierarchy. There have now been Over 12,000 “views” by people on this thread who now know how incompetent these military leaders are. It is not as if they say change is not necessary. I have had meetings with many of these leaders who have consistently said to me that they support change and it will happen. It is just that they do not appear to have the ability or the self confidence to be responsible for bringing in the changes and therefore being held accountable for an actual decision.
I can assure everyone I will never give up whilst the lives of Australian families are being unnecessarily endangered. I hope the changes are made before additional inevitable deaths occur. We have already had one ditching at Port Stephens with a pilot following the “lane”, luckily that one did not result in loss of life.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 28th Jan 2008 at 23:47.
Thread Starter
ozbigles,
Whether you like it or not the only reason that the Cessna 210 pilot flight planned the extra distance around to the west of Williamtown, was that he believed at the time that he would not get a clearance direct.
Surely, you can understand that no pilot would want to fly in mountainous areas at night, when a more direct route took the plane over the low coastal beaches. Even today, most pilots I know would never even attempt to get a clearance through Williamtown. I know many who battle the inland lane where most of the flying is done at levels, where you cannot do a safe forced landing – rather than to attempt to get a clearance.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there will be further fatalities, and this time I will make sure the people in the military in Canberra who have steadfastly refused to update to modern international practices are held accountable.
Whether you like it or not the only reason that the Cessna 210 pilot flight planned the extra distance around to the west of Williamtown, was that he believed at the time that he would not get a clearance direct.
Surely, you can understand that no pilot would want to fly in mountainous areas at night, when a more direct route took the plane over the low coastal beaches. Even today, most pilots I know would never even attempt to get a clearance through Williamtown. I know many who battle the inland lane where most of the flying is done at levels, where you cannot do a safe forced landing – rather than to attempt to get a clearance.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there will be further fatalities, and this time I will make sure the people in the military in Canberra who have steadfastly refused to update to modern international practices are held accountable.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When we only have to see the absolute stuff up with the procurement policy of the military to see how, for some reason, competent people do not reach the top.
I know for a fact that you have at times been 'stitched up' unfairly, but has it occurred to you that your approach to getting your own way (while probably having contributed to your considerable successes in life) may not be helping you very much in the realm of aviation? Hurling generalised slurs about, as you have in this forum, does you no credit. Likewise, subjecting ATC to diatribes and harangues when you don't get your own way is not likely to garner you much respect anywhere in the professional aviation community. The fact that you have done so whilst serving as Chairman of CASA (I've heard it personally, and was pretty disappointed as someone who had previously admired and respected you) is even worse. Change of style required.
Thread Starter
Spaghetti Monster
This is about people’s lives.
Can’t you see this is about Australian families who are going to die because they are forced to hold in their aircraft at low levels over rough oceans. Surely something has to be done.
In relation to the military procurement statement - have you looked into the ‘purchase’ of the 1960s helicopters that I understand are now sitting in a hangar in Nowra. Who in their right mind would order a 30 year old second hand machine and then try to update it to modern standards, suggesting that such an order was ‘competent’.
Spaghetti Monster, this has nothing to do with ‘getting my own way’. I can afford the unnecessary holding and as I have a twin engined machine, in the unlikely event of an engine failure, my family and I will most likely live. As recently as Australia Day the military rules resulted in the unnecessarily holding of a single engined aircraft over the ocean nine miles away from the airport. Surely something has to be done.
Rather than debating the issue i.e. why the rules aren’t updated so that the risky low level holding does not occur, you attack me in relation to something that I am supposed to have done as CASA Chairman. If what you are saying is true it would have been on the front page of every newspaper in Australia. I have spent 15 years on this safety problem in relation to military airspace – doing this behind the scenes. There is no doubt I have been lied to. I won’t say ‘fib’ this time, I will say ‘lie’ because that is the fact. You don’t seem to realise that this is a matter of life or death. To hold single engined aircraft and force them to go at low level over the ocean is nothing short of criminal.
Have you seen the Angel Flight ads? I am now going to prepare a set of similar announcements for television which show clearly the danger that these military people are forcing on civilian pilots and their families. Hopefully these television announcements exposing the outrageous ignorance of these people may result in change which will prevent unnecessary deaths. By the way the announcements will be absolutely accurate. They will show the recreation of a pilot being forced to hold over the ocean in good weather conditions risking his and his family’s life. Also the military will be able to get onto a Current Affair or the 7.30 Report and explain why they do this.
Spaghetti Monster, you make no comment at all about the small Cessna that ditched in the ocean at Port Stephens. Luckily the lone pilot survived. Isn’t that warning enough for you? By the way, what do you think a pilot is supposed to do when ordered to hold at 500 feet remaining over water up to one nautical mile from the coast. Do you actually expect a low-time pilot to call ATC and say ‘this is not acceptable due to the fact that my family and I may die’.
I am so angry about this, I am now obtaining legal advice on what action can be taken through the Federal Court to force these people in the Airforce to treat human life with its true value. Twenty five years of a totally unnecessary holding of single engined aircraft over rough oceans is clearly unacceptable because when the inevitable fatalities occur, watch them all run for cover and say it wasn’t their responsibility.
This is about people’s lives.
Can’t you see this is about Australian families who are going to die because they are forced to hold in their aircraft at low levels over rough oceans. Surely something has to be done.
In relation to the military procurement statement - have you looked into the ‘purchase’ of the 1960s helicopters that I understand are now sitting in a hangar in Nowra. Who in their right mind would order a 30 year old second hand machine and then try to update it to modern standards, suggesting that such an order was ‘competent’.
Harangued air traffic control into getting my own way.
Rather than debating the issue i.e. why the rules aren’t updated so that the risky low level holding does not occur, you attack me in relation to something that I am supposed to have done as CASA Chairman. If what you are saying is true it would have been on the front page of every newspaper in Australia. I have spent 15 years on this safety problem in relation to military airspace – doing this behind the scenes. There is no doubt I have been lied to. I won’t say ‘fib’ this time, I will say ‘lie’ because that is the fact. You don’t seem to realise that this is a matter of life or death. To hold single engined aircraft and force them to go at low level over the ocean is nothing short of criminal.
Have you seen the Angel Flight ads? I am now going to prepare a set of similar announcements for television which show clearly the danger that these military people are forcing on civilian pilots and their families. Hopefully these television announcements exposing the outrageous ignorance of these people may result in change which will prevent unnecessary deaths. By the way the announcements will be absolutely accurate. They will show the recreation of a pilot being forced to hold over the ocean in good weather conditions risking his and his family’s life. Also the military will be able to get onto a Current Affair or the 7.30 Report and explain why they do this.
Spaghetti Monster, you make no comment at all about the small Cessna that ditched in the ocean at Port Stephens. Luckily the lone pilot survived. Isn’t that warning enough for you? By the way, what do you think a pilot is supposed to do when ordered to hold at 500 feet remaining over water up to one nautical mile from the coast. Do you actually expect a low-time pilot to call ATC and say ‘this is not acceptable due to the fact that my family and I may die’.
I am so angry about this, I am now obtaining legal advice on what action can be taken through the Federal Court to force these people in the Airforce to treat human life with its true value. Twenty five years of a totally unnecessary holding of single engined aircraft over rough oceans is clearly unacceptable because when the inevitable fatalities occur, watch them all run for cover and say it wasn’t their responsibility.
Folks,
How about everybody takes one step back, without the knee-jerk opposition to anything Dick Smith has to say, regardless of the merits of his well researched (and he does do his research -- which is more than can be said of some of the posts)) views, and look at just the facts of the case on Australia Day.
The ONLY traffic in the area, as described in a previous post, was the C182 and the IFR Baron, also a private flight, on a visual approach. The pilot of the Baron has confirmed the C182 situation. 10 nm+ separation laterally, no apparent use of vertical separation --- is that sensible separation under ANY circumstances --- let alone when it means pushing a single engine aircraft into orbits 9 nm from the beach at 500'.
Please--- without the attack dog approach to rejecting anybody who supports anything Dick Smith has to say --- could all of you who believe in the RAAF's unfettered right to shove GA traffic down into the weed, and force single engine aircraft to hold way offshore at 500', precluding any possibility of other than ditching in the event of an engine failure--- why is this OK ??
It's not OK, it is lunacy, it is not all that long ago that a C152 from a well known YSBK flying school ended up in the water off Willi. Thankfully the only occupant, a young student pilot, survived.
If that C182 had had a similar failure, how do you think the occupants might have fared??? There were children on board, indeed a family, don't you all think that the possibility of such fatalities dictates a re-think of the RAAF obstinacy in such matter. And it is obstinacy, there have been innumerable promises by the RAAF, over the forty plus years I have been involved, to drop the "We Won WWII, It All Belongs To Us" approach, but it hasn't happened yet.
The subject of the the problems brought about by the size of Richmond and Williamtown, RAAF "procedures", and the effect on ALL civil traffic, were on the agenda of the very first NSW RAPAC I ever attended (for the AFAP), that was a long, long time ago, little has changed for the better. For GA it hasn't changed at all.
Even surviving a prepared ditching is always touch and go, unprepared ??? There were no survivors from a ditching (or possibly it was CFIWater) late last year off southern Victoria.
In an aviation community that wants to use the word "safety" to justify any number of hare-brain'd micro-management "safety solutions" , why is this "procedure" "safe". In terms of Australia's national risk management standards, particularly AS/NZ 4360:2004, it is impossible to justify. No rational risk analysis could justify it.
Any reasonable person doesn't need to be an "aviation professional" to know it is completely unjustified ---- and most certainly not safe.
Canada, USA, UK and most European countries take a far more enlightened approach to cooperation between military and civilian aviation at all levels, and certainly don't impose anything like what happens at Willi. I know, from personal experience, in both GA and much larger aircraft. Even more so in the UK than the US, it is simplicity itself, why is it such a long running sore in Australia??
Why isn't the RAAF paying proper and due regard to the safety of ALL operations in its vast airspace. Will it have to be the all to common Australian approach --- changes are finally made as a result of recommendations by a Coroner --- and a Commission of Inquiry, looking at why such an unsafe procedure, as forecast many time --- finally cost lives.
The High Court of Australia, in 1982, Gibbs, CJ, defined duty of care. Is the RAAF in breach of its duty of care ???
Tootle pip!!
How about everybody takes one step back, without the knee-jerk opposition to anything Dick Smith has to say, regardless of the merits of his well researched (and he does do his research -- which is more than can be said of some of the posts)) views, and look at just the facts of the case on Australia Day.
The ONLY traffic in the area, as described in a previous post, was the C182 and the IFR Baron, also a private flight, on a visual approach. The pilot of the Baron has confirmed the C182 situation. 10 nm+ separation laterally, no apparent use of vertical separation --- is that sensible separation under ANY circumstances --- let alone when it means pushing a single engine aircraft into orbits 9 nm from the beach at 500'.
Please--- without the attack dog approach to rejecting anybody who supports anything Dick Smith has to say --- could all of you who believe in the RAAF's unfettered right to shove GA traffic down into the weed, and force single engine aircraft to hold way offshore at 500', precluding any possibility of other than ditching in the event of an engine failure--- why is this OK ??
It's not OK, it is lunacy, it is not all that long ago that a C152 from a well known YSBK flying school ended up in the water off Willi. Thankfully the only occupant, a young student pilot, survived.
If that C182 had had a similar failure, how do you think the occupants might have fared??? There were children on board, indeed a family, don't you all think that the possibility of such fatalities dictates a re-think of the RAAF obstinacy in such matter. And it is obstinacy, there have been innumerable promises by the RAAF, over the forty plus years I have been involved, to drop the "We Won WWII, It All Belongs To Us" approach, but it hasn't happened yet.
The subject of the the problems brought about by the size of Richmond and Williamtown, RAAF "procedures", and the effect on ALL civil traffic, were on the agenda of the very first NSW RAPAC I ever attended (for the AFAP), that was a long, long time ago, little has changed for the better. For GA it hasn't changed at all.
Even surviving a prepared ditching is always touch and go, unprepared ??? There were no survivors from a ditching (or possibly it was CFIWater) late last year off southern Victoria.
In an aviation community that wants to use the word "safety" to justify any number of hare-brain'd micro-management "safety solutions" , why is this "procedure" "safe". In terms of Australia's national risk management standards, particularly AS/NZ 4360:2004, it is impossible to justify. No rational risk analysis could justify it.
Any reasonable person doesn't need to be an "aviation professional" to know it is completely unjustified ---- and most certainly not safe.
Canada, USA, UK and most European countries take a far more enlightened approach to cooperation between military and civilian aviation at all levels, and certainly don't impose anything like what happens at Willi. I know, from personal experience, in both GA and much larger aircraft. Even more so in the UK than the US, it is simplicity itself, why is it such a long running sore in Australia??
Why isn't the RAAF paying proper and due regard to the safety of ALL operations in its vast airspace. Will it have to be the all to common Australian approach --- changes are finally made as a result of recommendations by a Coroner --- and a Commission of Inquiry, looking at why such an unsafe procedure, as forecast many time --- finally cost lives.
The High Court of Australia, in 1982, Gibbs, CJ, defined duty of care. Is the RAAF in breach of its duty of care ???
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 29th Jan 2008 at 06:00.
Taking into consideration that the 182 was asked to hold. In three minutes the aircraft would be within radar separation minima of 1000ft and 3nm. The radar data must have shown the Baron and the 182 were going to be in conflict of the minima. I guess Dick would reckon that the Baron could have been asked to maintain 1500ft till clear of the coast which puts him less than 4nm from the threshold at 1500ft doable but not pretty. So ATC has a choice, 182 doing circle work or ask the Baron to remain 1500ft till over the beach.
OK, looking at the 182 driver, do you think it prudent to attempt an orbit at 500ft out over a rough ocean at over 140kts. Considering a rate one would put you some 1.5nm out to sea. Slow to 80kts with 20flap and that distance is 800m, creep in a little over the beach before turning out and the distance is even less. The time taken to slow and turn wouldn't raise the heckles of the ATC. I am sure there was a good 6nm of airspace to slow and turn before it would be critical. I am also sure ATC if they asked would agree with such a request.
Keeping in mind, I am sure the act of one rate one turn to take up 2 minutes would have the two aircraft clear and the 182 could continue.
Was the 182 asked to do more than one orbit?
If I was in the 182, I would certainly start to slow up and chuck some flap out to keep in close. I know because I have already been faced with an exact same scenario. The ATC is after time to separate, help him do it.
OK, looking at the 182 driver, do you think it prudent to attempt an orbit at 500ft out over a rough ocean at over 140kts. Considering a rate one would put you some 1.5nm out to sea. Slow to 80kts with 20flap and that distance is 800m, creep in a little over the beach before turning out and the distance is even less. The time taken to slow and turn wouldn't raise the heckles of the ATC. I am sure there was a good 6nm of airspace to slow and turn before it would be critical. I am also sure ATC if they asked would agree with such a request.
Keeping in mind, I am sure the act of one rate one turn to take up 2 minutes would have the two aircraft clear and the 182 could continue.
Was the 182 asked to do more than one orbit?
If I was in the 182, I would certainly start to slow up and chuck some flap out to keep in close. I know because I have already been faced with an exact same scenario. The ATC is after time to separate, help him do it.
So who declared the various volumes of Restricted airspace that the RAAF controls at Williamtown?
I'm not sure that running ads indicating to the general public that GA aircraft can't be operated near water because it could have an engine failure at any time (that's the way many would see it) is really going to help. You may just convince Joe Public not to go flying in GA aircraft! That won't help business.
Fuel for those living near airports used by GA trying to close them: "Dick Smith said ......."
The subtlty of orbiting vs. flying from A to B will be lost on Mr & Mrs Public.
You might want to run your proposal past AOPA before proceeding, Dick.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
I seem to remember a pronouncement you made after the reversal of E over D - please correct me if I am wrong. From memory, you announced publicly that you would be advising your family not to fly because of the accident risk associated with C over D (reversal of Stage 2b???). Your sentiments must have seemed quite frightening to the general public given your profile. I'd suggest that such a pronouncement rings a little hollow, since you still fly (as I understand it) into what used to be known as secondary control zones, with C over D, despite your aforementioned warnings.
So, while I defend your right to raise what you regard to be a sub-standard level of service in Williamtown airspace, I respectfully suggest that your previous assertions may have damaged your argument. 'Shock value' is all well and good, but I think that we now have a situation where previously potential allies may regard you as the 'boy who cried wolf'.
I seem to remember a pronouncement you made after the reversal of E over D - please correct me if I am wrong. From memory, you announced publicly that you would be advising your family not to fly because of the accident risk associated with C over D (reversal of Stage 2b???). Your sentiments must have seemed quite frightening to the general public given your profile. I'd suggest that such a pronouncement rings a little hollow, since you still fly (as I understand it) into what used to be known as secondary control zones, with C over D, despite your aforementioned warnings.
So, while I defend your right to raise what you regard to be a sub-standard level of service in Williamtown airspace, I respectfully suggest that your previous assertions may have damaged your argument. 'Shock value' is all well and good, but I think that we now have a situation where previously potential allies may regard you as the 'boy who cried wolf'.
Can't give you a name, but the process as I understand it is that since 1 July 2007 a "delegate" in CASAs Office of airspace regulation signs off an instrument covering all airspace published in the designated airspace handbook for a particular publication date. That happens for every DAH release.
Dick: Wouldn’t it be a little embarrassing if the people who have declared the Williamtown Restricted areas over the last 25 years weren’t people in uniform? Wouldn’t it be smarter to argue with the organ grinder who makes the decisions, rather than the monkeys who have to deal with the consequences of the decisions, once you’ve found out who the organ grinder is?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spaghetti Monster, you make no comment at all about the small Cessna that ditched in the ocean at Port Stephens.
Dick
I make no comment about it because I'm not actually opposing your stance on Williamtown airspace. I don't claim sufficiently detailed knowledge on the issue to take a position either way.
What I was opposing is your inaccurate and offensive slurs, partly because they don't do your arguments any favours, and partly because they're inaccurate and offensive.
You implied directly that anyone who reaches the top of the military is not competent. To support this you use the example of procurement policy. Firstly, many procurement programs are actually perfectly successful. Secondly, are you aware that some procurement decisions (eg F-111G, F-18F, F-35) are made with little or no uniformed input?
You then backed up your assertion with the example of the Seasprite. Quite a cockup - but believe it or not, there are many senior military officer in the last 25 years who had nothing to do with it. It's a bit like taking the example of Rodney Adler and Ray Williams, and claiming that all high-flying businessmen are incompetent and corrupt. (We couldn't have that, could we?
) I'm left wondering why an intelligent man would bother making an assertion with so little sound logic to back it up.Likewise, your original comments in post #128 about the alleged lack of effort in finding the remains from the C210 accident. Another inaccurate and offensive slur - as evidenced by your susequent editing of the post.
As for
If what you are saying is true it would have been on the front page of every newspaper in Australia
Anyway, enough. I'm not a knee-jerk Dick-basher (now there's a mental image for you!
), nor do I think everything you do or say is wrong. Just some of it.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ONLY traffic in the area, as described in a previous post, was the C182 and the IFR Baron, also a private flight, on a visual approach. The pilot of the Baron has confirmed the C182 situation. 10 nm+ separation laterally, no apparent use of vertical separation --- is that sensible separation under ANY circumstances --- let alone when it means pushing a single engine aircraft into orbits 9 nm from the beach at 500'.
Letting a pilot stooge on up the beach with a view to sorting out the separation later is widely considered a loss of tactical separation assurance as you have a deteriorating separation situation without provision for radio failure, radar failure etc.
In the past IFR arrivals to RWY30 were given a requirement to conduct the VSA 1NM west of the coast to provide appropriate lateral separation and allow the coastal traffic to continue. Why that method was not suitable or used in this case, I cannot say. The reasons may be many.
If the instruction to the C182 required the PIC to break any rule or regulation, eg proceeding further than engine out glide from the beach when not appropriately equipped with life jackets etc, then the PIC is required to reject the clearance and demand something more suitable.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On Australia Day just after 9.00 am, a VFR 182 south bound in the lane was held 9 miles from Williamtown orbiting over a rough ocean at 500 feet so the 182 could be “separated” from a Baron making a visual approach to runway 30. If the 182 had had an engine failure on any of the outbound legs which took it one mile from the beach at 500 feet it is most likely all lives would have been lost in the subsequent ditching.
Thread Starter
Pass-A-Frozo, you state:
In fact, from my experience I have found the general public are not stupid. They know the implications of a single engine aircraft and they know the absolute irresponsibility of forcing such an aircraft over the ocean at low levels when there are alternatives. The television announcement will make this absolutely clear.
Ozbusdriver, it is amazing that you come up with the most extraordinary claims of how the situation can be justified but you don’t come up with any support for the fact that if the regulations were updated to follow other leading aviation countries, there would be no need for the aircraft to be forced to hold low over a rough ocean in the first place.
I have mentioned before that the “standard” used in North America is 500 feet vertically, or target resolution. If this “standard” was used in Australia there would be no need for the unnecessary and risky holding.
Howabout, I think you will find my announcements about the risk of flying in airspace were in relation to places like Proserpine – with high mountains in the CTAF and no use of the available radar – and also Avalon airport – with over 1 million passenger movements and no air traffic control or even a UNICOM.
Creampuff, thanks for your advice, I’ll look into it. The problem is that it won’t matter what enormous stuff-ups have been made in the past in relation to the declaration of airspace, all that will happen if I take action on this is that the problems will be rectified (within a couple of hours and with the stroke of a pen) and the real changes I want will never come in. By real changes, I mean modern procedures that are proven internationally that give very high levels of safety without forcing undue risk onto pilots and without resulting in unnecessary costs.
Spaghetti Monster, I’ll take your point regarding the fact that there are undoubtedly some competent people who have reached the top of the military. Why then don’t they bring in some modern procedures that will reduce unnecessary risk? If they don’t want to do that, why don’t they say why?
I believe that eventually these modern procedures will come in. Just as many other changes have been resisted over the last 2 decades, eventually after a lot of pressure the changes are made, safety is improved and costs are reduced.
I assure everyone that I have done everything I can behind the scenes to encourage the military decision makers to move forward to modern safe procedures as proven internationally. The ones I have spoken to have agreed that this is a necessity, and even told me that they support change and it is going to happen. When the years go by and nothing happens, you wonder what is going on. Maybe these people need a bit of assistance from outside.
Green on, Go!, in this case the C182 was not held at Nobbys, it was southbound (as I originally stated) and it was told to hold when 9 nautical miles to the north east of Williamtown, flying south in the light aircraft lane over water.
Pera, I love your comment:
Can you remember the days when in Sydney, VFR helicopters were separated by ATC from other VFR helicopters? In the case of helicopters flying to and from the Darling Harbour helipad, this was done procedurally as if they were IFR – i.e. one helicopter would sit on the helipad with rotors running for up to 15 minutes, whilst another helicopter was inbound. This was eventually changed (after a lot of pressure) to simply giving a traffic information service. It worked safely from then on, and meant that the helicopters passed each other quite often with many miles separation rather than passing each other on the helipad as one hovered close to the other. Safety was undoubtedly improved.
Isn’t it amazing that there is simply no one in the military game to put their name to a view on this issue? These are people who are going to defend us in the case of war. Wouldn’t you think they would have the guts to come on this website or issue a public statement in relation to why they force VFR aircraft to fly at low levels over the ocean when an engine failure would most likely result in all on board losing their lives?
As I’ve said before, it is all a complete sham because when they go home on the weekend it is a complete free for all – without even a UNICOM giving traffic information.
Remember, I’m not talking about the military separating VFR aircraft from F/A-18s, I’m talking about the so-called “separation” of a VFR aircraft from a Beech Baron on a visual approach.
I'm not sure that running ads indicating to the general public that GA aircraft can't be operated near water because it could have an engine failure at any time (that's the way many would see it) is really going to help.
Ozbusdriver, it is amazing that you come up with the most extraordinary claims of how the situation can be justified but you don’t come up with any support for the fact that if the regulations were updated to follow other leading aviation countries, there would be no need for the aircraft to be forced to hold low over a rough ocean in the first place.
I have mentioned before that the “standard” used in North America is 500 feet vertically, or target resolution. If this “standard” was used in Australia there would be no need for the unnecessary and risky holding.
Howabout, I think you will find my announcements about the risk of flying in airspace were in relation to places like Proserpine – with high mountains in the CTAF and no use of the available radar – and also Avalon airport – with over 1 million passenger movements and no air traffic control or even a UNICOM.
Creampuff, thanks for your advice, I’ll look into it. The problem is that it won’t matter what enormous stuff-ups have been made in the past in relation to the declaration of airspace, all that will happen if I take action on this is that the problems will be rectified (within a couple of hours and with the stroke of a pen) and the real changes I want will never come in. By real changes, I mean modern procedures that are proven internationally that give very high levels of safety without forcing undue risk onto pilots and without resulting in unnecessary costs.
Spaghetti Monster, I’ll take your point regarding the fact that there are undoubtedly some competent people who have reached the top of the military. Why then don’t they bring in some modern procedures that will reduce unnecessary risk? If they don’t want to do that, why don’t they say why?
I believe that eventually these modern procedures will come in. Just as many other changes have been resisted over the last 2 decades, eventually after a lot of pressure the changes are made, safety is improved and costs are reduced.
I assure everyone that I have done everything I can behind the scenes to encourage the military decision makers to move forward to modern safe procedures as proven internationally. The ones I have spoken to have agreed that this is a necessity, and even told me that they support change and it is going to happen. When the years go by and nothing happens, you wonder what is going on. Maybe these people need a bit of assistance from outside.
Green on, Go!, in this case the C182 was not held at Nobbys, it was southbound (as I originally stated) and it was told to hold when 9 nautical miles to the north east of Williamtown, flying south in the light aircraft lane over water.
Pera, I love your comment:
ATC separating aircraft. Unbelievable!
Isn’t it amazing that there is simply no one in the military game to put their name to a view on this issue? These are people who are going to defend us in the case of war. Wouldn’t you think they would have the guts to come on this website or issue a public statement in relation to why they force VFR aircraft to fly at low levels over the ocean when an engine failure would most likely result in all on board losing their lives?
As I’ve said before, it is all a complete sham because when they go home on the weekend it is a complete free for all – without even a UNICOM giving traffic information.
Remember, I’m not talking about the military separating VFR aircraft from F/A-18s, I’m talking about the so-called “separation” of a VFR aircraft from a Beech Baron on a visual approach.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 29th Jan 2008 at 23:17.
Thread Starter
Spaghetti Monster, I omitted to answer two of your other points. First of all, in relation to post #128, my statement was factual:
The editing on that post was in relation to the link to the letter and had nothing to do with the statement you are referring to.
I spoke on a number of occasions to the man referred to who was involved in the search until he died. He was absolutely outraged at the lack of interest from all parts of Government (including the military) in relation to finding and recovering the 5 bodies for their loved ones.
However the main point in relation to that post and that issue is something you haven’t touched on. That is, as there is clearly a perception that pilots have to flight plan around the Williamtown airspace in bad weather, and this clearly resulted in 5 people losing their lives. Why hasn’t someone in the military issued a simple statement explaining to pilots that in the case of bad weather, the military will do everything they can to expedite a clearance through the airspace where an aircraft can remain at low level, out of icing? As far as I know, there has never been such a statement. To this day, pilots still have a perception that they have to flight plan around the airspace – and that is what they are doing.
And by the way, the reason there would be no reporting (whether on the front page or on page 7 or 8) of this so-called incident when I was CASA Chairman is that what you are talking about never occurred. Why don’t you ask your informant for an approximate time and place, and what the subject was actually about? I believe you will then find you have been fed a furphy.
I will ask a question. If it had been the Chief of the Air Force who had gone missing over Barrington Tops, do you think money would have been spent on finding the crash site and his body? Too right - just as a large amount of money was correctly spent in Fiji recovering the Black Hawk helicopter which crashed off the back of HMAS Kanimbla.
I spoke on a number of occasions to the man referred to who was involved in the search until he died. He was absolutely outraged at the lack of interest from all parts of Government (including the military) in relation to finding and recovering the 5 bodies for their loved ones.
However the main point in relation to that post and that issue is something you haven’t touched on. That is, as there is clearly a perception that pilots have to flight plan around the Williamtown airspace in bad weather, and this clearly resulted in 5 people losing their lives. Why hasn’t someone in the military issued a simple statement explaining to pilots that in the case of bad weather, the military will do everything they can to expedite a clearance through the airspace where an aircraft can remain at low level, out of icing? As far as I know, there has never been such a statement. To this day, pilots still have a perception that they have to flight plan around the airspace – and that is what they are doing.
And by the way, the reason there would be no reporting (whether on the front page or on page 7 or 8) of this so-called incident when I was CASA Chairman is that what you are talking about never occurred. Why don’t you ask your informant for an approximate time and place, and what the subject was actually about? I believe you will then find you have been fed a furphy.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 30th Jan 2008 at 00:15.
Dick, it is not extraordinary. It's called AIRMANSHIP. Part of that means learn the system and flow with it. Entrepreneurs need not apply. Finding a niche and exploiting it works for business, not safe aviating.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn’t you think they would have the guts to come on this website or issue a public statement in relation to why they force VFR aircraft to fly at low levels over the ocean when an engine failure would most likely result in all on board losing their lives?
You should take up your case with RAPAC and GA associations who can lobby for legislative change. What possible case could the airforce have for being involved in civilian aircraft separation standards? Your own posts indicate that the airforce have been in favour of airspace reform and NAS, so I assume they are not stopping it.
in this case the C182 was not held at Nobbys, it was southbound (as I originally stated) and it was told to hold when 9 nautical miles to the north east of Williamtown, flying south in the light aircraft lane over water.
Trying to give the airforce a bloody nose because they provide ATC at WLM will be ineffective. Surely they will have to implement whatever standards for civilian aircraft that they are required to by legislation.
When fighters are not operating at WLM, I don't see why transits have to use the vfr lanes. I suppose that the airspace is set up for worst case scenario (ie busy with fighters) but having an aircraft fly through final isn't too bright if it's avoidable.
P
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My sentiments exactly Pera. Good call about airmanship.
The military operates within the legal requirements of CASA legislation pertaining to separation standards. We do not set our own separation standards. Lobby the government, lobby CASA but dont blame the Military (ATCs and the 'Bosses' alike) for implementing the Australian standard. They can not control what happens with legislation, influence maybe, but why would they when the military is not adversely affected. That might sound a bit arrogant, but really, why lobby to change something that in their eye's (for this particular situation at Willy) isn't broken?
Using that line is about the lamest, weakest most pathetic comment i have read on this sight. I hardly see what being good at their job (warfighting) has to do with legislating a civilian controlled industry.
The militarys' job is not to comment on matters such as this. That is what the Transport Minister and CASA CEO are for. Remember the argument Dick, it is about government legislation not military procedures.
The military operates within the legal requirements of CASA legislation pertaining to separation standards. We do not set our own separation standards. Lobby the government, lobby CASA but dont blame the Military (ATCs and the 'Bosses' alike) for implementing the Australian standard. They can not control what happens with legislation, influence maybe, but why would they when the military is not adversely affected. That might sound a bit arrogant, but really, why lobby to change something that in their eye's (for this particular situation at Willy) isn't broken?
These are people who are going to defend us in the case of war.
Wouldn’t you think they would have the guts to come on this website or issue a public statement in relation to why they force VFR aircraft to fly at low levels over the ocean when an engine failure would most likely result in all on board losing their lives?