25 years of holding at Williamtown
They know the implications of a single engine aircraft
I've had direct experience of the general public's perception of GA aircraft ops, so I know what I'm talking about.
As I said, run your proposal past AOPA before you do untold damage to GA
And I'm not sure I got an answer to my question: what exactly did you say to WLM ATC on the air recently?
Thread Starter
Ozbusdriver, you state:
From that I understand you mean “stick with the status quo” – i.e. if in 1930 someone decided that there should be a 1,000 foot vertical separation between IFR and VFR, that separation must go on forever. That is, “learn the system and flow with it” rather than look at other modern aviation countries which have changed to a 500 foot separation standard with no reported safety implications.
I have a feeling – as sad as it is – that we are going to have to wait for more needless fatalities at Williamtown before the changes are made. In my publication Unsafe Skies I quoted a senior Government bureaucrat who said that the changes would not be made until there was a major airline accident. He said that was the history of aviation.
Although most who post on this site are opposed to any change and want the status quo, I’m truly hoping there are some new “Young Turks” coming along who will push for Australia to move to the most efficient and modern regulations in the world.
By the way, CaptainMidnight, I’ve spoken to Col Rodgers, the President of AOPA, and he totally supports television announcements in relation to Williamtown and single engine aircraft as I have discussed on this thread.
Dick, it is not extraordinary. It's called AIRMANSHIP. Part of that means learn the system and flow with it.
I have a feeling – as sad as it is – that we are going to have to wait for more needless fatalities at Williamtown before the changes are made. In my publication Unsafe Skies I quoted a senior Government bureaucrat who said that the changes would not be made until there was a major airline accident. He said that was the history of aviation.
Although most who post on this site are opposed to any change and want the status quo, I’m truly hoping there are some new “Young Turks” coming along who will push for Australia to move to the most efficient and modern regulations in the world.
By the way, CaptainMidnight, I’ve spoken to Col Rodgers, the President of AOPA, and he totally supports television announcements in relation to Williamtown and single engine aircraft as I have discussed on this thread.
Thread Starter
Gundog01, you state:
This is only partially true. For example, CASA has quite specific dimensions for Class C airspace promulgated. Nowhere does it show Class C going to 24 miles at ground level. The military has simply decided to take no notice of the CASA “standards” in this case.
Gundog01, if you are going to be good at your job (i.e. war fighting) you need to have people who are strong at leadership, have lateral thinking minds, and copy the best practices from anywhere in the world. They also need to be forceful enough to do what they say they are going to do – not just lamely copy some rule from 50 years ago from a pathetic Government bureaucracy.
It is the military’s job to comment when their actions are causing unnecessary risk. Why couldn’t they say that they are concerned about the unnecessary risk created for Australian families, and they are working with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to update the regulations so the risk can be reduced?
The reason the military does nothing is your statement:
What they are saying is that it is not military lives that are at risk when they are holding a single engine plane with a young family out over the ocean, so why should they care at all?
It is interesting that when I, and other civilians, see a military person being injured or killed overseas, we are incredibly concerned – and many of us do everything we can to assist the families. What a pity it doesn’t work both ways.
In fact it does work both ways. Many of the military people I know are concerned about the unnecessary risk that is being created at Williamtown and other places, but believe they simply can’t do anything about it.
CaptainMidnight, I can’t remember what I actually said to Williamtown ATC, however it certainly wasn’t that I would refuse the instruction they had given me (i.e. to hold) as has been recommended by others on this site.
The military operates within the legal requirements of CASA legislation pertaining to separation standards.
Remember the argument Dick, it is about government legislation not military procedures.
Gundog01, if you are going to be good at your job (i.e. war fighting) you need to have people who are strong at leadership, have lateral thinking minds, and copy the best practices from anywhere in the world. They also need to be forceful enough to do what they say they are going to do – not just lamely copy some rule from 50 years ago from a pathetic Government bureaucracy.
It is the military’s job to comment when their actions are causing unnecessary risk. Why couldn’t they say that they are concerned about the unnecessary risk created for Australian families, and they are working with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to update the regulations so the risk can be reduced?
The reason the military does nothing is your statement:
That might sound a bit arrogant, but really, why lobby to change something that in their eyes (for this particular situation at Willy) isn't broken?
It is interesting that when I, and other civilians, see a military person being injured or killed overseas, we are incredibly concerned – and many of us do everything we can to assist the families. What a pity it doesn’t work both ways.
In fact it does work both ways. Many of the military people I know are concerned about the unnecessary risk that is being created at Williamtown and other places, but believe they simply can’t do anything about it.
CaptainMidnight, I can’t remember what I actually said to Williamtown ATC, however it certainly wasn’t that I would refuse the instruction they had given me (i.e. to hold) as has been recommended by others on this site.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is only partially true. For example, CASA has quite specific dimensions for Class C airspace promulgated. Nowhere does it show Class C going to 24 miles at ground level. The military has simply decided to take no notice of the CASA “standards” in this case.
Do you not think it is safer to declare a large CTR that encompasses a number of dangerous areas (bombs, rockets etc) rather than promulgate, activate and de-activate small areas which could be easily be missed on NOTAMS resulting in needless deaths? I think the RAAF is doing GA a favour by having such an area.
And I also agree that it is the PIC's responsibility to ensure the safety of their aircraft. If the instruction given to them by ATC puts their flight into danger, they should speak up. I would expect a VFR aircraft on a vector to advise me if they were going to enter cloud. Same way if you are told to hold over water and were worried then you should speak up. If you are confident enough to fly a plane you are confident enough to seek a better solution with ATC.
Cheers,
NFR.
Last edited by No Further Requirements; 30th Jan 2008 at 23:27. Reason: spellin'
Thread Starter
No Further Requirements, I can assure you that there are many places around the world where there are live firing and strafing ranges in the vicinity of airports like Williamtown. Not at any place that I have ever seen do they encompass the whole area in Class C airspace.
Also, the point I’m getting at is that this airspace is activated to 24 miles for civilian traffic. That is, ATC will come in and activate the airspace because there is a Saab or a Navajo approaching.
Everything you say is about keeping the status quo and justifying what has been done in the past.
Whereas a low time pilot would be trained to advise ATC if being vectored into cloud, it would take quite a gutsy low time pilot to refuse an ATC instruction to hold and orbit.
Unfortunately you are missing out on the whole point I am making. That is, there is simply no need under the circumstances shown to hold a VFR aircraft. They can actually transit through the airspace very safely using modern ICAO procedures. For example, if the airspace was Class D, a traffic information service would suffice.
We go from everything (i.e. Class C) to absolutely nothing (i.e. a “black hole” CTAF) purely depending on when the military decides to man the tower – not when the risks are highest for civilian traffic.
I can assure you that this is all about a lack of ability of the people in the military to introduce any change – even if it is change that they want.
Also, the point I’m getting at is that this airspace is activated to 24 miles for civilian traffic. That is, ATC will come in and activate the airspace because there is a Saab or a Navajo approaching.
Everything you say is about keeping the status quo and justifying what has been done in the past.
Whereas a low time pilot would be trained to advise ATC if being vectored into cloud, it would take quite a gutsy low time pilot to refuse an ATC instruction to hold and orbit.
Unfortunately you are missing out on the whole point I am making. That is, there is simply no need under the circumstances shown to hold a VFR aircraft. They can actually transit through the airspace very safely using modern ICAO procedures. For example, if the airspace was Class D, a traffic information service would suffice.
We go from everything (i.e. Class C) to absolutely nothing (i.e. a “black hole” CTAF) purely depending on when the military decides to man the tower – not when the risks are highest for civilian traffic.
I can assure you that this is all about a lack of ability of the people in the military to introduce any change – even if it is change that they want.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long time since I worked at Willy - but looking ta the map now - the Control Zone is actually 12nm. 
The airspace outside that (to 25nm - see below) is part of the restricted airspace associated with the Willy training areas.
I don't know what airspace Willy activates on weekends to process aircraft, but I can't imagine its all of the CTR (SFC-5000), R578A (5000-FL125) and R578B (SFC-FL125) is it?
The airspace outside that (to 25nm - see below) is part of the restricted airspace associated with the Willy training areas.
I don't know what airspace Willy activates on weekends to process aircraft, but I can't imagine its all of the CTR (SFC-5000), R578A (5000-FL125) and R578B (SFC-FL125) is it?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i.e. if in 1930 someone decided that there should be a 1,000 foot vertical separation between IFR and VFR, that separation must go on forever. That is, “learn the system and flow with it” rather than look at other modern aviation countries which have changed to a 500 foot separation standard with no reported safety implications.
Dick, How can you advocate changing separation standards if you don't know them. Serious question!
It is the military’s job to comment when their actions are causing unnecessary risk.
Thread Starter
Pera, do everything you can to keep the status quo. My statement in relation to the 1,000 foot vertical separation standard was clearly not referring to the standard where we are the same as the USA. It was referring to situations where we are different.
You left out the fact that horizontally, the US requires target resolution, whereas in Australia we do not accept this – even when the radar signal is coming from one radar head.
I find it fascinating that every post is trying to justify the status quo rather than looking at how we could do it better.
Remember that this is about human life. If the changes are not made I have no doubt that people will be lost (probably a young family) after their aircraft ditches in a rough ocean after being needlessly held by a military air traffic controller.
You left out the fact that horizontally, the US requires target resolution, whereas in Australia we do not accept this – even when the radar signal is coming from one radar head.
I find it fascinating that every post is trying to justify the status quo rather than looking at how we could do it better.
Remember that this is about human life. If the changes are not made I have no doubt that people will be lost (probably a young family) after their aircraft ditches in a rough ocean after being needlessly held by a military air traffic controller.
You are so wrong, Dick. The system includes every change in airspace over the last ten years. Flow with it means you are familiar and professional with the operations of flying in controlled airspace. No matter what rules you change!
Radar separation standard is 3nm and 1000ft. The choice of ATC is to either vector the Baron on approach or hold the 182 for less than two minutes to achieve that separation. It is easier for the 182 to hold. Now, how far did that 182 go out over the ocean, Dick? How long was the 182 held for?
Some advice, Mr Smith. You are burning your bridges with your so called supporters. Use your status to do something worthwhile. Leave the boys and girls at WLY alone. Learn the system and flow with it, stop acting like an ass!
Want to do something useful? ASIC out to five years like the truckies MSIC. Class 1 instructors to be able to take students without having to procure an AOC. CIR checked along with AFR and remain in force until cancelled (Same as the US, buddy!) The tower at EN. Get some of that GST taken out of a stateless aviation industry to be spent back in the industry it is ripped out of. We have got a new Transport minister who could be the worst thing to happen to aviation since Charlie Jones' day, How about being nice for a change and use some actual facts. Put your money into getting out and promoting GA as a good way to spend your recreational dollar and go see Australia rather than trying to portray it as a single engine disaster just waiting to happen over a suburb near you. Look around you, Dick. The last runway built in NSW was Temora three years ago and that was the first one in twenty years. Evans Head aerodrome is being set for the developers chopping block yet it serves an essential service. Soon , there will be no GA friendly aerodromes within the SY basin. Infrastucture is what is stuck in the past!
Radar separation standard is 3nm and 1000ft. The choice of ATC is to either vector the Baron on approach or hold the 182 for less than two minutes to achieve that separation. It is easier for the 182 to hold. Now, how far did that 182 go out over the ocean, Dick? How long was the 182 held for?
Some advice, Mr Smith. You are burning your bridges with your so called supporters. Use your status to do something worthwhile. Leave the boys and girls at WLY alone. Learn the system and flow with it, stop acting like an ass!
Want to do something useful? ASIC out to five years like the truckies MSIC. Class 1 instructors to be able to take students without having to procure an AOC. CIR checked along with AFR and remain in force until cancelled (Same as the US, buddy!) The tower at EN. Get some of that GST taken out of a stateless aviation industry to be spent back in the industry it is ripped out of. We have got a new Transport minister who could be the worst thing to happen to aviation since Charlie Jones' day, How about being nice for a change and use some actual facts. Put your money into getting out and promoting GA as a good way to spend your recreational dollar and go see Australia rather than trying to portray it as a single engine disaster just waiting to happen over a suburb near you. Look around you, Dick. The last runway built in NSW was Temora three years ago and that was the first one in twenty years. Evans Head aerodrome is being set for the developers chopping block yet it serves an essential service. Soon , there will be no GA friendly aerodromes within the SY basin. Infrastucture is what is stuck in the past!
In regards to your example, the chances of an engine failure in that 2 minutes of holding I think it FAR FAR FAR more likely that an accident may happen at a GAAP airport now that no longer has any airport firefighting service and that same family will die trapped in an aircraft before specialist help arrives.
Can't remember who made that affordable safety decision to save a couple of cents a litre in AVGAS charges....can anyone else?
If there was only one aircraft causing the 182 to hold at WLM, I'm sure they would have got an airways clearance. If they had planned or asked with enough time to organise it that is.
Are you also advocating the closure of all coastal routes because of the risk they pose? The end of the 500' beach run I guess.
Can't remember who made that affordable safety decision to save a couple of cents a litre in AVGAS charges....can anyone else?
If there was only one aircraft causing the 182 to hold at WLM, I'm sure they would have got an airways clearance. If they had planned or asked with enough time to organise it that is.
Are you also advocating the closure of all coastal routes because of the risk they pose? The end of the 500' beach run I guess.
I’ve spoken to Col Rodgers, the President of AOPA, and he totally supports television announcements in relation to Williamtown and single engine aircraft
I would have thought that only positive stories and news about GA would be supported, not one that highlights they can have engine failures at any time. The fact you are trying to make of that engine failure happening out to sea, is a fine point that will be lost with the public perception that light aircraft are hazardous.
The Mr & Mrs Public I've dealt with would no doubt hold the view that not only should light aircraft not be allowed near military bases, they shouldn't be allowed over built up areas i.e. they would support flying coastal in case of accidents.
But you know better - what can we tell you.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is the military’s job to comment when their actions are causing unnecessary risk. Why couldn’t they say that they are concerned about the unnecessary risk created for Australian families, and they are working with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to update the regulations so the risk can be reduced?
If the changes are not made I have no doubt that people will be lost (probably a young family) after their aircraft ditches in a rough ocean after being needlessly held by a military air traffic controller.
Also, if dad or mum is flying the family around in a lightie i would hope they would be confident and assertive enough to mention to ATC when a potentially dangerous situation occurs. Airnmanship anyone......
GD01
Thread Starter
Ozbusdriver, about 25 years ago I used to orbit for up to 10 minutes at Hornsby, just outside the Sydney control zone, so I could be separated from the Channel 10 helicopter which was departing the zone from Ryde.
After a lot of work, I and others managed to change that “regulation”, which required ATC to separate VFR from VFR (as if they were IFR) to modern procedures of simply giving traffic information. That has saved the industry a small fortune since then. It has relieved the unnecessary workload on controllers and undoubtedly improved safety.
Let’s now move forward to our 3 nautical mile and 1,000 foot “standard” that the controllers are using at Williamtown. As I have pointed out endlessly, the “standard” in other leading countries such as the USA is 500 feet and target resolution. This simply means that the controller can allow the aircraft to get closer together so they can sight each other and keep apart – all very sensible, and it results in no holding under similar circumstances.
One day we will change to these modern rules, but I’m amazed at how difficult it is to make these moves. Who could possibly be against them? Certainly not the air traffic controllers, who are being forced to hold aircraft needlessly over the ocean, and know that their bosses will all run for cover and blame them when people die. It certainly can’t be the pilots of VFR aircraft who don’t want to waste the time holding. They are quite often using aviation so they can get to a place promptly.
Why don’t you say for an instant that we (whether it be CASA, Airservices or the Defence department) should look in Australia to moving to these modern separation standards? Just as we could change the rule that required VFR to be separated from VFR in primary control zones, surely we can change the rule in Class C to reflect what is used all around the world.
All the other points you bring up are points I’m interested in. I have an ongoing campaign to remove very unnecessary cost. In the last few days I wrote to Grant Mazowita, Manager Regulatory Development Management Branch at CASA, in relation to having our command instrument rating follow the US system – which does not require a 12 monthly renewal.
Ozbiggles, yes, I was involved in the removal of rescue and fire fighting at secondary airports. It is totally consistent with my campaign at Williamtown. It is about harmonisation with proven safe practices. GA airports of a similar size in all other modern aviation countries (other than the UK) did not have the cost of an airport fire fighting service as it was a misallocation of resources. It didn’t spend the safety dollar effectively – just as holding an aircraft 9 miles away does not.
Why won’t any of you, even for a second, consider that we should look at moving to modern separation procedures which undoubtedly will reduce waste and risk?
Gundog01, I see your point, but why would military controllers want to use procedures that were designed in the 1950s – or perhaps the 1930s? Also, I’m sure they understand that if one of these aircraft that is being held to their archaic procedures comes down in the water and everyone drowns, all the bosses will run for cover and the controller will undoubtedly be held responsible, and be told that there was some other procedure that he or she should have used. Wait for it to happen and see if I’m right. I bet I am.
After a lot of work, I and others managed to change that “regulation”, which required ATC to separate VFR from VFR (as if they were IFR) to modern procedures of simply giving traffic information. That has saved the industry a small fortune since then. It has relieved the unnecessary workload on controllers and undoubtedly improved safety.
Let’s now move forward to our 3 nautical mile and 1,000 foot “standard” that the controllers are using at Williamtown. As I have pointed out endlessly, the “standard” in other leading countries such as the USA is 500 feet and target resolution. This simply means that the controller can allow the aircraft to get closer together so they can sight each other and keep apart – all very sensible, and it results in no holding under similar circumstances.
One day we will change to these modern rules, but I’m amazed at how difficult it is to make these moves. Who could possibly be against them? Certainly not the air traffic controllers, who are being forced to hold aircraft needlessly over the ocean, and know that their bosses will all run for cover and blame them when people die. It certainly can’t be the pilots of VFR aircraft who don’t want to waste the time holding. They are quite often using aviation so they can get to a place promptly.
Why don’t you say for an instant that we (whether it be CASA, Airservices or the Defence department) should look in Australia to moving to these modern separation standards? Just as we could change the rule that required VFR to be separated from VFR in primary control zones, surely we can change the rule in Class C to reflect what is used all around the world.
All the other points you bring up are points I’m interested in. I have an ongoing campaign to remove very unnecessary cost. In the last few days I wrote to Grant Mazowita, Manager Regulatory Development Management Branch at CASA, in relation to having our command instrument rating follow the US system – which does not require a 12 monthly renewal.
Ozbiggles, yes, I was involved in the removal of rescue and fire fighting at secondary airports. It is totally consistent with my campaign at Williamtown. It is about harmonisation with proven safe practices. GA airports of a similar size in all other modern aviation countries (other than the UK) did not have the cost of an airport fire fighting service as it was a misallocation of resources. It didn’t spend the safety dollar effectively – just as holding an aircraft 9 miles away does not.
Why won’t any of you, even for a second, consider that we should look at moving to modern separation procedures which undoubtedly will reduce waste and risk?
Gundog01, I see your point, but why would military controllers want to use procedures that were designed in the 1950s – or perhaps the 1930s? Also, I’m sure they understand that if one of these aircraft that is being held to their archaic procedures comes down in the water and everyone drowns, all the bosses will run for cover and the controller will undoubtedly be held responsible, and be told that there was some other procedure that he or she should have used. Wait for it to happen and see if I’m right. I bet I am.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: NSW
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clarification
By the way, CaptainMidnight, I’ve spoken to Col Rodgers, the President of AOPA, and he totally supports television announcements in relation to Williamtown and single engine aircraft as I have discussed on this thread.
Tim Blatch
AOPA CEO
Dick, can we just look at this realisticly. The threshold of WLM 30 is 3.04nm from the first dune on the beach. The FAF for 30 NDB is 6nm from the aid. A 5 degree approach to the 30 threshold is 1540ft at the dune. A 3 degree approach is 930ft. A visual approach could be anywhere within these two heights at this point. A VFR lighty coming down the beach @500ft is in conflict with the 1000ft separation as a minimum and your 500ft separation in the worst case. Radar, by way of vector lines, can see where these aircraft will be in 3 minutes time given maintaining speed and course.
Your idea of a VFR coastal lane at WLM will not work. SY and Victor 1 are over at least 6nm separation. If this was a CTAF you would still be cursing ATC for not doing their job. ATC are there, they do their job that would ensure separation and you curse them. If the 182 driver didn't like it He has the OBLIGATION of telling ATC he will not accept the directions.
From what I understand, the US system still protects published approaches with a splayed airspace out to 5nm. If that was here the WLM zone would still be 2nm out to sea. Dick, it is far easier to work with WLM ATC .
When MCY got busier and before it became a CTZ. We had to maintain 500ft coastal and fly out around Mudjimba to avoid MCY and that was all OK back then. No biggy then and that Island was more than a mile off the coast.
Your idea of a VFR coastal lane at WLM will not work. SY and Victor 1 are over at least 6nm separation. If this was a CTAF you would still be cursing ATC for not doing their job. ATC are there, they do their job that would ensure separation and you curse them. If the 182 driver didn't like it He has the OBLIGATION of telling ATC he will not accept the directions.
From what I understand, the US system still protects published approaches with a splayed airspace out to 5nm. If that was here the WLM zone would still be 2nm out to sea. Dick, it is far easier to work with WLM ATC .
When MCY got busier and before it became a CTZ. We had to maintain 500ft coastal and fly out around Mudjimba to avoid MCY and that was all OK back then. No biggy then and that Island was more than a mile off the coast.
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 1st Feb 2008 at 02:43.
I thought there was more to it. Thank you for the clarification, good to see.
What is the point of harranging ATCs civil or military here? They work within the rules.
If you've got a beef with the standards, write to CASA.
Is the reason you post here because such organisations and others in the industry won't engage you or don't share your views?
Why don’t you say for an instant that we (whether it be CASA, Airservices or the Defence department) should look in Australia to moving to these modern separation standards?
If you've got a beef with the standards, write to CASA.
Is the reason you post here because such organisations and others in the industry won't engage you or don't share your views?
What is the point of harranging ATCs civil or military here? They work within the rules.
If you've got a beef with the standards, write to CASA.
If you've got a beef with the standards, write to CASA.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
We now have a bit of a dilemma. You claim that Col Rodgers supported your push for TV adverts with the assertion that:
By the way, CaptainMidnight, I’ve spoken to Col Rodgers, the President of AOPA, and he totally supports television announcements in relation to Williamtown and single engine aircraft as I have discussed on this thread.
We now have Tim Blatch telling us that:
Col has asked me to post a clarification. In his conversation with Dick, Col agreed that orbiting at 500' one mile out to sea was an undesirable situation. He did not discuss any television advertising with Dick, and Col believes that an advertising campaign such as that described in this forum would not be in the best interest of General Aviation.
There's a mis-match here on who said what to whom - can we please have some clarification Dick.
We now have a bit of a dilemma. You claim that Col Rodgers supported your push for TV adverts with the assertion that:
By the way, CaptainMidnight, I’ve spoken to Col Rodgers, the President of AOPA, and he totally supports television announcements in relation to Williamtown and single engine aircraft as I have discussed on this thread.
We now have Tim Blatch telling us that:
Col has asked me to post a clarification. In his conversation with Dick, Col agreed that orbiting at 500' one mile out to sea was an undesirable situation. He did not discuss any television advertising with Dick, and Col believes that an advertising campaign such as that described in this forum would not be in the best interest of General Aviation.
There's a mis-match here on who said what to whom - can we please have some clarification Dick.
Thread Starter
No Just waiting for a call back from Col.
Ozbusdriver how does it all work when CTAF procedures apply? I can assure you that aircraft do not hold at Nobbies. They obtain traffic info on each other and can somehow operate without orbiting over the ocean at low levels.
We should get some of the Bankstown controllers at WLM to show how lots of aircraft can be moved safely with minimum delays
Ozbusdriver how does it all work when CTAF procedures apply? I can assure you that aircraft do not hold at Nobbies. They obtain traffic info on each other and can somehow operate without orbiting over the ocean at low levels.
We should get some of the Bankstown controllers at WLM to show how lots of aircraft can be moved safely with minimum delays