25 years of holding at Williamtown
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So on one side of the argument, WLM is an unsafe CTAF because of the GA that flys around there on weekends and should be fully controlled......on the other hand when GA are separated IAW the rules and regulations set by CASA that all Air Traffic Controllers are required to compy with it is over controlled. Make up your mind.
As numerous other people have pointed out in this thread so far, this is not something that you should be targeting at Defence and you certainly should not be targeting the young men and women of this country who perform their jobs with the utmost professionalism and ceaseless enthusiasm. Lets not forget that they are also willing to go and serve in countries where there lives are at risk.........they do not deserve to be subjected to one man's unhappiness with the current rules and procedures that apply in this country. I would far rather see them do their job and comply with the rules then disregard them and perhaps cause an accident.
How about becoming a little bit professional yourself and tackle this so called "risk" in a professional manner and take your so called concerns formally to CASA and let them decide if indeed there is a safety issue, I suspect not!
As numerous other people have pointed out in this thread so far, this is not something that you should be targeting at Defence and you certainly should not be targeting the young men and women of this country who perform their jobs with the utmost professionalism and ceaseless enthusiasm. Lets not forget that they are also willing to go and serve in countries where there lives are at risk.........they do not deserve to be subjected to one man's unhappiness with the current rules and procedures that apply in this country. I would far rather see them do their job and comply with the rules then disregard them and perhaps cause an accident.
How about becoming a little bit professional yourself and tackle this so called "risk" in a professional manner and take your so called concerns formally to CASA and let them decide if indeed there is a safety issue, I suspect not!
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probalby half the Bankstown Controllers are ex Military anyway - I certainly knew a few ex-mil who went there.
Dick - find a hole and crawl in
Dick - find a hole and crawl in
Thread Starter
dircmt, I am not "targeting" the young people in the military- I am totally supportive and on their side. I am however targeting those in the decision making positions in Canberra who make no decisions on this issue.
I have taken my concerns to CASA and I am told that the military bosses refuse to allow any change-no doubt because they cannot see any advantage for them.
For safety reasons I believe we should have ATC at Williamtown and not just a CTAF-but why can't we have modern classD airspace and procedures so that aircraft are not forced to hold at low level over the ocean!
I have taken my concerns to CASA and I am told that the military bosses refuse to allow any change-no doubt because they cannot see any advantage for them.
For safety reasons I believe we should have ATC at Williamtown and not just a CTAF-but why can't we have modern classD airspace and procedures so that aircraft are not forced to hold at low level over the ocean!
I am told that the military bosses refuse to allow any change-no doubt because they cannot see any advantage for them
Thread Starter
bentleg, as I have already said,I have spent over a decade communicating with these military people in Canberra. Despite promises of change nothing happens.
I am not actually whingeing- I am communicating to thousands of people just what the real situation is.
Do you think I would get more success in communicating through Newcastle TV just how Aussie families are forced to fly low over the ocean because the military have never modernised their procedures?
Already the "outing" through this thread is having an effect as I understand some recent clearances through the lane have been at 1000' - a great safety improvement that has been rejected in the past.
Now all we need is a procedure for VFR aircraft to transit across the top of the field as they do at LAX and we,ll really be improving safety.
I thank everyone for the support from behind the scenes.
I am not actually whingeing- I am communicating to thousands of people just what the real situation is.
Do you think I would get more success in communicating through Newcastle TV just how Aussie families are forced to fly low over the ocean because the military have never modernised their procedures?
Already the "outing" through this thread is having an effect as I understand some recent clearances through the lane have been at 1000' - a great safety improvement that has been rejected in the past.
Now all we need is a procedure for VFR aircraft to transit across the top of the field as they do at LAX and we,ll really be improving safety.
I thank everyone for the support from behind the scenes.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you think I would get more success in communicating through Newcastle TV just how Aussie families are forced to fly low over the ocean because the military have never modernised their procedures?
For the last time stop the military bashing. It is not the military's procdures. It is CASA legislation that dictates separation standards. UNDERSTAND.
I've been willing to give you the benefit of the doubt about your motives. It is becoming clear that along with your campaign to change the system, there is a strong under current of anti-military sentiment. DITCH IT.
DG01
Do you think I would get more success in communicating through Newcastle TV just how Aussie families are forced to fly low over the ocean because the military have never modernised their procedures?
Their view would be that anything that stops unsafe light aircraft from flying over houses is a good thing. AOPA are right to distance themselves from this.
And Defence would simply respond to such ads. saying that they accommodate civil traffic when possible, but the base is after all conducting activity related to the defence of the nation and that work and activity naturally takes priority.
And Mr & Mrs Public will think fair enough, why should the military give way to light aircraft, and those things don't want to get held up then don't fly near the bases.
But we can't tell you that. You know better.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
I have stood back, and largely agreed with your points etc - and yes there are 'dick-bashers' (he he) who have attempted to drag your arguement off track... don't be found guilty of doing the same.
As you are aware, Williamtown is not a 'joint users' airfield - and like most jobs in our RAAF, ATC staff are in short supply. If you were to conduct a little more research, you would find that the WLM tower is manned outside of military flying hours for the benfit of RPT and other heavy scheduled civilain movement periods. Thats right, manned by RAAF ATC outside of RAAF flying hours, not civilians. Should greater periods of control be required by RAAF ATC (ie weekends), manning is such that there would be insufficient control during the very busy week days. It is a RAAF base manned by RAAF ATC, not civilians.
The issue (as you rightly point out to a degree) is the pace at which Williamtown (referring to the guest civilian RPT use) movements have increased. The practise cable engagements, circuit training and other circuit dense activities that occur this time of year are at worst 'accomodated' by the military flying program, and are generally well scheduled and deconflicted from other movements. The ability of RAAF ATC in these situations (particularly when something goes sideways) is a credit to them and the military pilots who work with them.
While your average F/A-18 pilot is doing his best to meet ATC requirements, steer his 4 ship of '44000lbs fire breathing war chariots' (ack Simmo) about the sky and meet the tactic training requirements of his category - he is not particularly concerned about (or able to avoid due takeoff speed) light traffic within the ATZ and is therefore afforded an IFR departure and the seperation that entails.
It is all about priorities, and the length of this thread has highlighted many of them. Some times, one must consider that his flight is in fact not the first priority or the immediate concern. Next time you hold at Nobbys I hope you are offered 1000'. Please take a look around at what is becoming a very immpressive city (and its ever busier military airport), and focus your efforts on the improvement of wider aviation services and other areas in Australia you have made a positive improvement in - and not the cheap shot slander and 'military bashing' of those who choose to take a public servants wage to defend it.
Perhaps you could ask for a WLM clearance one day, drop in to see a hornet Sqn and the Approach personnel, and show your support as a prominent Australian (I'm sure they'd take a ride in the Augusta too by the way).
N_r
I have stood back, and largely agreed with your points etc - and yes there are 'dick-bashers' (he he) who have attempted to drag your arguement off track... don't be found guilty of doing the same.
As you are aware, Williamtown is not a 'joint users' airfield - and like most jobs in our RAAF, ATC staff are in short supply. If you were to conduct a little more research, you would find that the WLM tower is manned outside of military flying hours for the benfit of RPT and other heavy scheduled civilain movement periods. Thats right, manned by RAAF ATC outside of RAAF flying hours, not civilians. Should greater periods of control be required by RAAF ATC (ie weekends), manning is such that there would be insufficient control during the very busy week days. It is a RAAF base manned by RAAF ATC, not civilians.
The issue (as you rightly point out to a degree) is the pace at which Williamtown (referring to the guest civilian RPT use) movements have increased. The practise cable engagements, circuit training and other circuit dense activities that occur this time of year are at worst 'accomodated' by the military flying program, and are generally well scheduled and deconflicted from other movements. The ability of RAAF ATC in these situations (particularly when something goes sideways) is a credit to them and the military pilots who work with them.
While your average F/A-18 pilot is doing his best to meet ATC requirements, steer his 4 ship of '44000lbs fire breathing war chariots' (ack Simmo) about the sky and meet the tactic training requirements of his category - he is not particularly concerned about (or able to avoid due takeoff speed) light traffic within the ATZ and is therefore afforded an IFR departure and the seperation that entails.
It is all about priorities, and the length of this thread has highlighted many of them. Some times, one must consider that his flight is in fact not the first priority or the immediate concern. Next time you hold at Nobbys I hope you are offered 1000'. Please take a look around at what is becoming a very immpressive city (and its ever busier military airport), and focus your efforts on the improvement of wider aviation services and other areas in Australia you have made a positive improvement in - and not the cheap shot slander and 'military bashing' of those who choose to take a public servants wage to defend it.
Perhaps you could ask for a WLM clearance one day, drop in to see a hornet Sqn and the Approach personnel, and show your support as a prominent Australian (I'm sure they'd take a ride in the Augusta too by the way).
N_r
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: sydney,NSW
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many contributors to this thread have tried to explain away the perceived lack of co-operation from the military in the area of faciliting transit of the WMX areas by VFR aircraft because they claim that WLM is essentially a military aerodrome. By this premise the claim is made that the military have no obligation whatsoever to facilitate anything to civil users.
I beg to differ. The symbol on all navigation charts clearly designates WLM as joint military/civil. Terminal charts for the aerodrome also make it clear that WLM allows civil operations provided civil users obtain prior permission from the military. I’ll admit that in that respect alone, it is different to aerodromes like Canberra where no military permission for use of the aerodrome is required. However, the fact that the military do facilitate civil operations and that they do make provision for VFR traffic to transit the WMX areas via certain lanes, does not mean that no-one can question their methods of doing this. I believe that all Dick Smith is attempting to do is to suggest that there may be a better and safer way for VFR aircraft to be facilitated in the WMX areas. By his own account, the military have indeed admitted as much and have promised to do something about it……apparently over a long period of time, but nothing has eventuated. You really shouldn’t be surprised that Dick has become a little frustrated. The man is simply asking that the military review the way they facilitate VFR operations and has suggested a safer way that they might consider doing things. Why is this such a seemingly onerous task for the military to accomplish, particularly when they have already said they will do it?
I beg to differ. The symbol on all navigation charts clearly designates WLM as joint military/civil. Terminal charts for the aerodrome also make it clear that WLM allows civil operations provided civil users obtain prior permission from the military. I’ll admit that in that respect alone, it is different to aerodromes like Canberra where no military permission for use of the aerodrome is required. However, the fact that the military do facilitate civil operations and that they do make provision for VFR traffic to transit the WMX areas via certain lanes, does not mean that no-one can question their methods of doing this. I believe that all Dick Smith is attempting to do is to suggest that there may be a better and safer way for VFR aircraft to be facilitated in the WMX areas. By his own account, the military have indeed admitted as much and have promised to do something about it……apparently over a long period of time, but nothing has eventuated. You really shouldn’t be surprised that Dick has become a little frustrated. The man is simply asking that the military review the way they facilitate VFR operations and has suggested a safer way that they might consider doing things. Why is this such a seemingly onerous task for the military to accomplish, particularly when they have already said they will do it?
Thread Starter
Vans, you are spot on with your post. Of course there will now be posts claiming it is a CASA decision!
It requires goodwill from both organisations and an understanding that holding aircraft should be a last resort procedure after all others have been reviewed.
Gundog01 I generally admire all of the people in the military-thats one of the reasons I spent an arduous week about a year ago visiting our forces in the middle east.
I have obviously failed at communicating to those in decision making positions the importance of introducing the most efficient ATC procedures and airspace. Yes ,they have told me they intend to do this however I imagine other more important things get in the way.
It appears to me that there is not a lot of training on the importance of reducing waste and minimising cost.
I have always been obsessed with asking advice and then making the tough decision ,to the best of my abilities,as to which is the correct advice,and then acting on this.
Some of those I have met in the military have told me they are simply not interested in how other countries operate their airspace-they are totally happy with the way we do it here!
If there are others who have constructive ideas I how I can achieve success on this dificult issue I will welcome all advice.
It requires goodwill from both organisations and an understanding that holding aircraft should be a last resort procedure after all others have been reviewed.
Gundog01 I generally admire all of the people in the military-thats one of the reasons I spent an arduous week about a year ago visiting our forces in the middle east.
I have obviously failed at communicating to those in decision making positions the importance of introducing the most efficient ATC procedures and airspace. Yes ,they have told me they intend to do this however I imagine other more important things get in the way.
It appears to me that there is not a lot of training on the importance of reducing waste and minimising cost.
I have always been obsessed with asking advice and then making the tough decision ,to the best of my abilities,as to which is the correct advice,and then acting on this.
Some of those I have met in the military have told me they are simply not interested in how other countries operate their airspace-they are totally happy with the way we do it here!
If there are others who have constructive ideas I how I can achieve success on this dificult issue I will welcome all advice.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Van,
WLM is a military aerodrome. There's obviously an agreement for scheduled flights to use it and PILS etc are accommodated (reading the ersa entry) but all these are secondary to it's military purpose.
No-one is suggesting that you can't question the military. The military operate under the same legislated rules as ASA so are you questioning the right people. Some have said that the airspace needs to be changed and that the military can do this, but that is not correct. Any change to the classification of the airspace would effect all civilian and military users. DS is nowhere near convincing all the airspace users of the need for change. His safety arguments are not comprehensive and as others have suggested, would probably result in the coastal lane being closed if he ran TV adds. The public has little sympathy for private pilots. If you can afford to own a plane.... (that is not my view fyi.)
They did do something. DS has stated that the military was a big supporter of NAS. If NAS had come in, the military would have had new rules and they may have changed the way they process the VFR transits. It didn't, (not the military's fault) so they couldn't change their procedures.
The military are not the people that change these rules and procedures. The military do not make rules about civil aircraft separation standards.
DS has quoted US class C procedures which allow target resolution and 500ft standards between all aircraft. This would be a solution for DS and the military would have to introduce it if it was legislated, but they can't implement it without legislation, so what is he asking them to do?
GA pilots need to lobby the correct organisations if they want the rules to change. NAS was recently defeated, so there is a lot of opposition to the changes that DS wants to make. DS's frustration should be directed at the right people. He has admitted that the military supports change.
Maybe there is a way for ATC to process VFR aircraft through WLM airspace more efficiently within the current rules. I've seen no good suggestions on this thread though.
they claim that WLM is essentially a military aerodrome.By this premise the claim is made that the military have no obligation whatsoever to facilitate anything to civil users.
However, the fact that the military do facilitate civil operations and that they do make provision for VFR traffic to transit the WMX areas via certain lanes, does not mean that no-one can question their methods of doing this.
By his own account, the military have indeed admitted as much and have promised to do something about it……apparently over a long period of time
The man is simply asking that the military review the way they facilitate VFR operations and has suggested a safer way that they might consider doing things. Why is this such a seemingly onerous task for the military to accomplish, particularly when they have already said they will do it?
DS has quoted US class C procedures which allow target resolution and 500ft standards between all aircraft. This would be a solution for DS and the military would have to introduce it if it was legislated, but they can't implement it without legislation, so what is he asking them to do?
GA pilots need to lobby the correct organisations if they want the rules to change. NAS was recently defeated, so there is a lot of opposition to the changes that DS wants to make. DS's frustration should be directed at the right people. He has admitted that the military supports change.
Maybe there is a way for ATC to process VFR aircraft through WLM airspace more efficiently within the current rules. I've seen no good suggestions on this thread though.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: sydney,NSW
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pera
I am sure that you understand that the military have the first say in any changes that affect the airspace which surrounds WLM. You say
I am quite sure that all that restricted airspace didn’t get there without input from the military in the first place. Sure it required ASA approval before it was promulgated, but nothing will happen with ASA unless the military give their approval or input in the first place. This is why the first line of seeking approval is with the military.
Once again
All he is asking (I understand) is that the military look at a safer way of transiting VFR aircraft (and one of those ways he has suggested, is directly overhead the airfield) rather than holding aircraft over houses or the ocean. If the military have some strong augment against this and can offer nothing better than is now being used, then let them come out and say it. On the other hand, if they believe there may be a better solution, then co-operate in finding that solution and then the ball will start rolling. Without the military making the first move, nothing will happen with ASA. Surely this is not too much to ask – authority in the past (whether it be military or civil) have always been slow to react to perceived safety issues until an accident or an incident forced the issue, and usually after someone was injured or killed. Let’s not wait for that to happen here when all it takes is for a little co-operation on the part of the military to get things moving. After that the ball will pass to ASA and maybe the necessary changes will take place. A refusal to do anything is risking a lot.
Bye the way, NAS was never defeated, it was changed somewhat (rolled back) but much of it still exists today, for the better or worse I not going to argue on this thread.
Some have said that the airspace needs to be changed and that the military can do this, but that is not correct
Once again
This would be a solution for DS and the military would have to introduce it if it was legislated, but they can't implement it without legislation, so what is he asking them to do?
Bye the way, NAS was never defeated, it was changed somewhat (rolled back) but much of it still exists today, for the better or worse I not going to argue on this thread.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All he is asking (I understand) is that the military look at a safer way of transiting VFR aircraft (and one of those ways he has suggested, is directly overhead the airfield) rather than holding aircraft over houses or the ocean. If the military have some strong augment against this and can offer nothing better than is now being used, then let them come out and say it.
I am sure that you understand that the military have the first say in any changes that affect the airspace which surrounds WLM.
All he is asking (I understand) is that the military look at a safer way of transiting VFR aircraft (and one of those ways he has suggested, is directly overhead the airfield) rather than holding aircraft over houses or the ocean.
I dont disagree that we should always look for better procedures, but we need a well thought out idea that not only satisifies the military and civvy circles, but is safe and most of all practical.
DG01
Vans, I think you will find if a safe, practical way is suggested as a way to 'improve' transits for GA aircraft then no one will have any real objections.
If you re read someones posts on this thread and the broad/general and inaccurate statements made on people in the defence force I think you will find what most people (well me at least) have taken objection to is some rather disgusting remarks made about people in the defence force. If you want I'll paste and copy them here, however those who have read the posts from the start will know what I mean. (first example is what was said about the Defence force effort in a SAR 25 years ago, which was in FACT incorrect)
Again I repeat, if there is better way of doing it that is safe and practical lets do it.
But If someone wants to throw mud, they shouldn't be surprised if no one wants to help them clean up their own mess!
If you re read someones posts on this thread and the broad/general and inaccurate statements made on people in the defence force I think you will find what most people (well me at least) have taken objection to is some rather disgusting remarks made about people in the defence force. If you want I'll paste and copy them here, however those who have read the posts from the start will know what I mean. (first example is what was said about the Defence force effort in a SAR 25 years ago, which was in FACT incorrect)
Again I repeat, if there is better way of doing it that is safe and practical lets do it.
But If someone wants to throw mud, they shouldn't be surprised if no one wants to help them clean up their own mess!
Surely the solution to this problem is simple!
1) Close Williamstown as a military airbase. Having XXX adjacent to / in the middle of such a high density population area and impeding a major N/S air corridor has not place in todays world.
2) Sell Williamstown off to the highest bidder - cause that's what we to with valuable aerodrome assets.
3) Move the Squadron(s) currently based at Williamstown to Sherger. This will help to populate and develop Cape York - which is something that badly needs to be done in Australia's strategic interest.
The only downside that I can think of to the above proposal would be the long transit times if an FA18 is needed to intercept a wayward Cessna that looks like it might be threatening some major event in the harbour city. However, given the speed difference between a C150 and an FA18, a supersonic dash across the penninsula and down the eastern seaboard should have the FA18 on the scene in no time and would be a good training exercise anyway.
Dr
1) Close Williamstown as a military airbase. Having XXX adjacent to / in the middle of such a high density population area and impeding a major N/S air corridor has not place in todays world.
2) Sell Williamstown off to the highest bidder - cause that's what we to with valuable aerodrome assets.
3) Move the Squadron(s) currently based at Williamstown to Sherger. This will help to populate and develop Cape York - which is something that badly needs to be done in Australia's strategic interest.
The only downside that I can think of to the above proposal would be the long transit times if an FA18 is needed to intercept a wayward Cessna that looks like it might be threatening some major event in the harbour city. However, given the speed difference between a C150 and an FA18, a supersonic dash across the penninsula and down the eastern seaboard should have the FA18 on the scene in no time and would be a good training exercise anyway.
Dr
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe we could solve the problem by charging GA more to cover the costs of relocating Williamtown. Lets call it an even billion and just divide it by the number of bug smashers using the williamtown corridor. You don't get something for nothing now.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: sydney,NSW
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ozbiggles
It would appear that
have got up your nose and this is a good reason why the military should ignore a potential safety issue. They (the military) are big boys, and I’m sure they can handle anything Dick Smith can throw at them without sulking and withdrawing co-operation.
Gundog01
No-one is suggesting that there wont be any holding or separation required in any alternative VFR route that goes through the WML area, but why as there such resistance to even looking at any alternatives? It’s as if people think that holding over unsafe areas should remain because that’s what we’ve always done.
I wasn’t talking about changing dimensions, I was talking about implementing the restricted areas in the first place. I don’t think it was an ASA idea to put all that restricted airspace there, they merely approved and promulgated it after the fact.
My point exactly………lets look for an alternative.
Again, my point……..why can’t we get some co-operation to do this? I believe that’s what DS is asking for.
ForkedTailedDrKiller ………great idea – why aren’t you an AVM in the military, we need men of your potential.
It would appear that
the broad/general and inaccurate statements made on people in the defence force
Gundog01
Circuit training, PFL training, RTB from western airspace, large formations operating at Salf Ash Air Weapons Range. Any of these activities could hold up a VFR civvy over head Willy just as much as IFR separation standards. They dont happen at the same time each day. You can't help bad timing when you transit, conflictions will occur, and ATC separate by the rules
Changing the dimensions of airspace is one thing, but changing legislation is another thing
why would home owners want these lighties that are about to fall out of the sky flying over their homes?????
I dont disagree that we should always look for better procedures, but we need a well thought out idea that not only satisifies the military and civvy circles, but is safe and most of all practical
ForkedTailedDrKiller ………great idea – why aren’t you an AVM in the military, we need men of your potential.