25 years of holding at Williamtown
Join Date: May 2001
Location: S 40°12'07" E 175°22'52"
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ForkTailedDrKiller,
Interesting idea, but what about closing RAAF Williamtown instead?
Inaccurate spelling has the habit of making oneself look like a bit of a fool, and sort of takes the steam out of the argument - don't you agree?
Of course, that's just my opinion....
Interesting idea, but what about closing RAAF Williamtown instead?
Inaccurate spelling has the habit of making oneself look like a bit of a fool, and sort of takes the steam out of the argument - don't you agree?
Of course, that's just my opinion....
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fragnasty.... beat me to it.
Last time I checked, the only military based at Williamstown was an army reserve depot.
Last time I checked, the only military based at Williamstown was an army reserve depot.
What has any of this got to do with ASA? The airspace regulator is CASA, and the airspace policy authority is DoTRS.
I'm not convinced there is much of a problem anyway. If there was, it would have been brought up well before now at industry forums such as RAPAC.
The only one complaining about being held is RHS, and wading through this thread, one other.
You fly near a busy military base, what do you expect. If you want to know how best to transit and what times - phone beforehand and ask. Same as CTA transit. Maybe even - gasp - lodge a flight plan.
Know the system and use it. Being lazy and expecting to be accommodated ad-hoc, you take your chances.
I'm not convinced there is much of a problem anyway. If there was, it would have been brought up well before now at industry forums such as RAPAC.
The only one complaining about being held is RHS, and wading through this thread, one other.
You fly near a busy military base, what do you expect. If you want to know how best to transit and what times - phone beforehand and ask. Same as CTA transit. Maybe even - gasp - lodge a flight plan.
Know the system and use it. Being lazy and expecting to be accommodated ad-hoc, you take your chances.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: S 40°12'07" E 175°22'52"
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Managing an environment where jets easily capable of 450kts have the potential to mix with light aircraft doing 100-odd knots up the coast is not easy. In addition, the fighters have the potential to change their trajectory reasonably quickly, and due to the amount of ground they cover, it is worth having the ability to keep dissimilar aircraft types at arm's length. This is not done to piss off the GA types trying to transit the corridor, it is done in the interests of safety.
Yes, the procedures at Williamtown may seem a little conservative, but they work.
When you're mixing high performance fighters with aircraft at the other end of the aviation spectrum, I don't think a conservative approach is a bad idea.
Choice bro'!
Managing an environment where jets easily capable of 450kts have the potential to mix with light aircraft doing 100-odd knots up the coast is not easy. In addition, the fighters have the potential to change their trajectory reasonably quickly, and due to the amount of ground they cover, it is worth having the ability to keep dissimilar aircraft types at arm's length. This is not done to piss off the GA types trying to transit the corridor, it is done in the interests of safety.
Yes, the procedures at Williamtown may seem a little conservative, but they work.
When you're mixing high performance fighters with aircraft at the other end of the aviation spectrum, I don't think a conservative approach is a bad idea.
Choice bro'!
Thread Starter
Captain Midnight, the main reason that it has not been brought up at recent RAPAC meetings is that those who have not flown VFR extensively overseas would not know there were better ways of doing things. Many VFR pilots I know believe they are indeed fortunate to be allowed through the airspace at all and would not dare complain about delays for the fear that they would be refused entry in the future.
It's a similar situation with some ATC's. They do not know that other modern aviation countries have developed modern procedures which move more traffic with less delays. How would they know, for the overseas visit programme that I introduced as CAA chairman in 1991 was stopped soon after I retired.
Fragnasty, I have been refering to delays that occur when just civil aircraft are present-not military.
It's a similar situation with some ATC's. They do not know that other modern aviation countries have developed modern procedures which move more traffic with less delays. How would they know, for the overseas visit programme that I introduced as CAA chairman in 1991 was stopped soon after I retired.
Fragnasty, I have been refering to delays that occur when just civil aircraft are present-not military.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 3rd Feb 2008 at 06:54.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: sydney,NSW
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CaptainMidnight
The airspace regulator is CASA, and the airspace policy authority is DoTRS
I'm not convinced there is much of a problem anyway
Could this be because you’ve never had to transit the airspace in the manner discussed on regular occasions?
If you want to know how best to transit and what times - phone beforehand and ask. Same as CTA transit. Maybe even - gasp - lodge a flight plan
Know the system and use it. Being lazy and expecting to be accommodated ad-hoc, you take your chances
Know the system and use it. Being lazy and expecting to be accommodated ad-hoc, you take your chances
I tried this procedure a few years back on a couple of occasions. After phoning I was told to track via either one of the two VFR lanes. I asked about potential holding and was told call at Nobbys if you decide to go that way, and we’ll let you know. Sure enough I was held over the sea near Nobbys. Flight plans in the system make no difference either way.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with being lazy.
As an aside to this, I have often arrived ad-hoc at the boundary to East Sale military airspace, requested a clearance and have always been issued one directly overhead ESL, thence to my destination. Different airfield, different traffic perhaps, but one would think that if it’s possible at ESL then it should be possible to at least consider it at WLM on the occasions when traffic permits.
Know the system and use it
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
I posted a couple of days ago and I believe that you should provide a reply. I don't know whether you think that additional posts will bury the query, but I don't feel that the question should be allowed to die. You made a very firm assertion; an assertion to the effect that the most representative GA body, in particular their president, supported a TV campaign about procedures at Williamtown.
Here's what I asked:
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.
Dick, you have not addressed the question. Your last post on this subject stated words to the effect that you were waiting for 'a call back from Col Rodgers'. Has Col called back and what did he say?
I think that we deserve an answer. There is a credibility issue here.
I posted a couple of days ago and I believe that you should provide a reply. I don't know whether you think that additional posts will bury the query, but I don't feel that the question should be allowed to die. You made a very firm assertion; an assertion to the effect that the most representative GA body, in particular their president, supported a TV campaign about procedures at Williamtown.
Here's what I asked:
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.
Dick, you have not addressed the question. Your last post on this subject stated words to the effect that you were waiting for 'a call back from Col Rodgers'. Has Col called back and what did he say?
I think that we deserve an answer. There is a credibility issue here.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Down Under
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Midnight says:
So Captain, tell me, are we a country with a military or a military with a country?
why should the military give way to light aircraft, and those things that (sic) don't want to get held up then don't fly near the bases.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Periapsis
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
are we a country with a military or a military with a country?
oh for gods sake, it is a fighter base, 1 of two 2 fully equipped for such activites, how much would it cost to relocate 
, not to mention its strategic importance where IT IS 
Try recovering FA18's or Pigs et al through D or E with bug smashers that occupy a life time crossing 12nm when the mil conflicts will cover 50+ in the same time, tactical separation is hard enough let alone trying radar DTI with fast jets and Augusta's, Caravan's and 182's
.killing families over big bad rough oceans, tit's like reading a boys own 10 page paperback
This thread is nothing more than attention seeking, get over it Smith.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
No one is resisting, there isn't any formal plan or request or investigation in place. Conversations Dick was Military hierarchy about changing things dont count much when neither of them are actually responsible for legislating.
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.
Military airspace is slowly being degraded (or at least attemtped) at arguably the RAAFs 2 most important bases. Pearce - where the next generation of pilots is trained, and Willy - where the current generation trains to defend us. Why would they want to give more away or degrade operational freedom.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: sydney,NSW
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will that be all Lagrange Mechanic, or do you have something constructive to add at a later date?
I’m sure when there is a real military conflict over WLM or anywhere else in Oz for that matter, the F18’s and pigs will have the airspace all to themselves.
I’m sure when there is a real military conflict over WLM or anywhere else in Oz for that matter, the F18’s and pigs will have the airspace all to themselves.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: sydney,NSW
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gundog01
it is there now so if you're mentioning it surely you must want it changed
Never in any of my posts have I even hinted at reducing or changing military airspace. My point was to demonstrate that the airspace (and other procedures at WLM) are there because the military want it there, and it was they who instigated the inception of such and not ASA. Therefore if we want any procedure at WLM changed we should first approach the military, not ASA as others have suggested. Once the military have agreed, then it has to go through ASA (CASA/DOTARS, whatever) for approval.
I am happy for the military to have all the airspace that is necessary, as long as it is necessary and the military, where they have agreed to share such airspace with civilian users, are at least willing to listen to any safety or efficiency issues that may be raised with regard to the use of that airspace in the areas they have designated for such use. This isn’t happening at the moment, despite some indications that things will change.
Thread Starter
Howabout,Col did not phone me back so I phoned him again. He said he did remember me talking about "announcements" but he wasn't sure they were to be TV announcements!
He said he would support TV announcements of a certain type-and we would have to discuss this.
During this second conversation he said that he was scared that any publicity on this issue may result in CASA bringing in even more restrictions for single engined aircraft.
He also agreed that it was extraordinary that Tim Blatch would put on such a post which basically called an AOPA member a liar without first phoning me to check my version of the conversation. Col said he would ask Tim why he did this and get back to me.
If you really could be bothered to get to the bottom of this I suggest you phone Col directly on 0408250910.
I stand by my origional post.
He said he would support TV announcements of a certain type-and we would have to discuss this.
During this second conversation he said that he was scared that any publicity on this issue may result in CASA bringing in even more restrictions for single engined aircraft.
He also agreed that it was extraordinary that Tim Blatch would put on such a post which basically called an AOPA member a liar without first phoning me to check my version of the conversation. Col said he would ask Tim why he did this and get back to me.
If you really could be bothered to get to the bottom of this I suggest you phone Col directly on 0408250910.
I stand by my origional post.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try recovering FA18's or Pigs et al through D or E with bug smashers that occupy a life time crossing 12nm when the mil conflicts will cover 50+ in the same time, tactical separation is hard enough let alone trying radar DTI with fast jets and Augusta's, Caravan's and 182's
See this post here and here where other countries can do it with many times the volume of traffic yet you refuse to even consider a different way of doing things.
MJ
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: sydney,NSW
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
where else would they stage from? or would you have intercepters based IN THE CAPITAL and i don't mean sydney
Try recovering FA18's or Pigs et al through D or E with bug smashers that occupy a life time crossing 12nm when the mil conflicts will cover 50+ in the same time, tactical separation is hard enough let alone trying radar DTI with fast jets and Augusta's, Caravan's and 182's
Thread Starter
Mjbow2, you state:
This is what I have been working on for 15 years. It is indeed extraordinary that most of these people are not even interested in finding out how the system can work better. This is why I do have a genuine concern about what would happen in the case of a war – where the best decisions must be made promptly.
Before everyone starts rubbishing me again, how can the military people possibly change their culture overnight? That is, at one stage fiercely resist change and not be interested in any way on how there could be a better way of doing something, but in an emergency situation such as a war, then ask for the best advice? This is a genuine comment and not “bagging” any particular person or group.
It seems to me as if there is a culture in the military not to ask advice and not to copy the best. It appears that soon there is to be about $1 billion written off on the Super Seasprite helicopter contract. Where does that money come from? Does it end up coming out of the superannuation of the military employees, or is it just refunded by Government from the taxpayer?
Is there any accountability? Who was the Chief of Air Force at the time of this order? I have no idea who it was. Does this person have any accountability, or does the military operate in a way where they would say, “Oh, he wouldn’t have known the full details of the contract, so he has no responsibility at all”?
Whichever way you look at it, if this contract is written off, around about $1 billion heads off (I presume) to the USA – less wealth for Australia and less wealth for the people in the military, including the ATCs.
Why not try it here in Australia where there is only a fraction of the density of both military and VFR aircraft?
Before everyone starts rubbishing me again, how can the military people possibly change their culture overnight? That is, at one stage fiercely resist change and not be interested in any way on how there could be a better way of doing something, but in an emergency situation such as a war, then ask for the best advice? This is a genuine comment and not “bagging” any particular person or group.
It seems to me as if there is a culture in the military not to ask advice and not to copy the best. It appears that soon there is to be about $1 billion written off on the Super Seasprite helicopter contract. Where does that money come from? Does it end up coming out of the superannuation of the military employees, or is it just refunded by Government from the taxpayer?
Is there any accountability? Who was the Chief of Air Force at the time of this order? I have no idea who it was. Does this person have any accountability, or does the military operate in a way where they would say, “Oh, he wouldn’t have known the full details of the contract, so he has no responsibility at all”?
Whichever way you look at it, if this contract is written off, around about $1 billion heads off (I presume) to the USA – less wealth for Australia and less wealth for the people in the military, including the ATCs.