25 years of holding at Williamtown
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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”?
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”?
Just a minor point.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Because the military (who aren't responsible for the changes you want) haven't implemented your changes, they are unable to fight a war.
I'm not sure that argument will win you any new friends.
Van,
The military aren't responsible for the changes you want. As DS has posted, the military are in favour of airspace reform, so move on to the other parties.
Because the military (who aren't responsible for the changes you want) haven't implemented your changes, they are unable to fight a war.
I'm not sure that argument will win you any new friends.
Van,
The military aren't responsible for the changes you want. As DS has posted, the military are in favour of airspace reform, so move on to the other parties.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: NSW
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Col Rodgers, AOPA President, has asked me to again post his words and ensure our position re Williamtown is understood.
GA single engine aircraft circling over water at 500’ is a safety matter of concern to all. We earlier added it to the agenda for NSW RAPAC of 7 February where military, regulatory and aviation representatives are present to discuss issues and initiate due process solutions. Williamtown is already separately on the RAPAC agenda as regards improving the safety of the inland route.
We do not intend to work outside the established regulatory framework or indulge in media campaigns that could be counter productive not only to public opinion of GA but also to our robust but strong evidence and data based working relationship with RAPAC and regulators.
Clearances through military airspace are a separate issue that we are addressing via ASTRA and the emerging provision of flexible use airspace. There may well be some cultural inhibitors to change but our approach is to seek data – e.g. times and areas flown by military aircraft – that enables rational discussion of safe future options.
As regards posts by Dick, we value Dick as we value all members that we represent on aviation issues. However Dick posts as himself with his own beliefs, not on behalf of AOPA, and we expect neither party to seek the advice of the other before posting.
We do not intend to enter into a “he said … she said” debate on here as it is irrelevant to the safety issue. Suffice to note that people’s beliefs colour the perceptions of what they hear and Col and Dick had very different understandings of their conversations.
To summarise - our role is to pursue the safety issue raised by several members – that’s what we are doing, and we thank the contributors to this debate who have added to our broader understanding of the situation.
Tim Blatch
AOPA CEO
GA single engine aircraft circling over water at 500’ is a safety matter of concern to all. We earlier added it to the agenda for NSW RAPAC of 7 February where military, regulatory and aviation representatives are present to discuss issues and initiate due process solutions. Williamtown is already separately on the RAPAC agenda as regards improving the safety of the inland route.
We do not intend to work outside the established regulatory framework or indulge in media campaigns that could be counter productive not only to public opinion of GA but also to our robust but strong evidence and data based working relationship with RAPAC and regulators.
Clearances through military airspace are a separate issue that we are addressing via ASTRA and the emerging provision of flexible use airspace. There may well be some cultural inhibitors to change but our approach is to seek data – e.g. times and areas flown by military aircraft – that enables rational discussion of safe future options.
As regards posts by Dick, we value Dick as we value all members that we represent on aviation issues. However Dick posts as himself with his own beliefs, not on behalf of AOPA, and we expect neither party to seek the advice of the other before posting.
We do not intend to enter into a “he said … she said” debate on here as it is irrelevant to the safety issue. Suffice to note that people’s beliefs colour the perceptions of what they hear and Col and Dick had very different understandings of their conversations.
To summarise - our role is to pursue the safety issue raised by several members – that’s what we are doing, and we thank the contributors to this debate who have added to our broader understanding of the situation.
Tim Blatch
AOPA CEO
A very good and constructive approach from AOPA (let me add I'm not a member but might be encouraged now to do so as it seems there is some rational thought there).
I wish AOPA all the best in finding a constructive outcome for all their members with concerns. It may not be a 100% fix for everyone but at least it appears the people who discuss these matters do it in a mature way.
I wish AOPA all the best in finding a constructive outcome for all their members with concerns. It may not be a 100% fix for everyone but at least it appears the people who discuss these matters do it in a mature way.
Thread Starter
It is interesting that Col doesn’t post in relation to his conversation with me. I believe I know why.
I wish AOPA luck with its “working relationship with RAPAC and regulators.” Some may remember in 1996/1997 AOPA worked with the RAPACs, the regulator and the military in relation to the unnecessary holding of aircraft at Williamtown. Lots of promises were made but unfortunately nothing changed.
The bureaucrats responsible for change seem to be experts at keeping the lid on everything – i.e. keep it out of the media, minimise any exposure, keep writing letters and having lots of meetings - then do nothing. Hopefully the complainants will go away. Of course, that is what we did 12 years ago – we went away.
In relation to AOPA addressing issues with ASTRA, I understood that ASTRA was set up in the interests of Airservices Australia and the airlines. I haven’t seen anything other than delaying tactics in relation to airspace – i.e. the claim that we will have some yet to be designated new categories of airspace, knowing that this will delay Australia moving to an existing proven airspace system which facilitates efficient movement of VFR traffic.
Many have worked hard to make AOPA effective over the years, however the astuteness of those against assisting the GA community has very effectively prevented this. By having lots of meetings which result in people flying around the country, but actually not making any changes, those who resist the change can probably go on forever.
I wish AOPA luck with its “working relationship with RAPAC and regulators.” Some may remember in 1996/1997 AOPA worked with the RAPACs, the regulator and the military in relation to the unnecessary holding of aircraft at Williamtown. Lots of promises were made but unfortunately nothing changed.
The bureaucrats responsible for change seem to be experts at keeping the lid on everything – i.e. keep it out of the media, minimise any exposure, keep writing letters and having lots of meetings - then do nothing. Hopefully the complainants will go away. Of course, that is what we did 12 years ago – we went away.
In relation to AOPA addressing issues with ASTRA, I understood that ASTRA was set up in the interests of Airservices Australia and the airlines. I haven’t seen anything other than delaying tactics in relation to airspace – i.e. the claim that we will have some yet to be designated new categories of airspace, knowing that this will delay Australia moving to an existing proven airspace system which facilitates efficient movement of VFR traffic.
Many have worked hard to make AOPA effective over the years, however the astuteness of those against assisting the GA community has very effectively prevented this. By having lots of meetings which result in people flying around the country, but actually not making any changes, those who resist the change can probably go on forever.
AOPA: well said and well done; working directly with the authorities and industry forums in a constructive way, rather than pointless grandstanding and mud slinging.
And I see that after this very issue was raised at an industry forum last year, you are working on it with RAAF WLM and CASA.
ASTRA was set up in the interests of "Australias whole of industry Air Traffic Management (ATM) planning body. ASTRA includes Airlines, Airports, Regional Aviation, Pilots, GA and various government organisations."
It's aim "The Plan sets the path for the future development of ATM in Australia over the next 15+ years and describes an ideal vision for the future. It highlights Australias commitment to the implementation of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) concept and global plan for ATM."
Thus copying a system from the U.S. that even the FAA admits is archaic and unchanged from the 1960's is possibly not where they see Australia or the world in 15+ years with the advances in avionics and surveillance.
And mods: as this thread is now going round in circles, has it run it's course?
And I see that after this very issue was raised at an industry forum last year, you are working on it with RAAF WLM and CASA.
I understood that ASTRA was set up in the interests of Airservices Australia and the airlines.
It's aim "The Plan sets the path for the future development of ATM in Australia over the next 15+ years and describes an ideal vision for the future. It highlights Australias commitment to the implementation of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) concept and global plan for ATM."
Thus copying a system from the U.S. that even the FAA admits is archaic and unchanged from the 1960's is possibly not where they see Australia or the world in 15+ years with the advances in avionics and surveillance.
And mods: as this thread is now going round in circles, has it run it's course?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mjbow2, you say
I am interested how you decide that this is "very successful". Any idea of the number of near misses that occur in the UK and USA between Mil fastjets and Lighties??? You will be surprised. Is this sort of risk (ie mid airs) better than holding for a couple of minutes. Remember the 'Big Sky Theory' never works.
What is interesting is that VFR in E while military jets in E and D are operating has been tried, very successfully. Why not try it here in Australia where there is only a fraction of the density of both military and VFR aircraft?
Leave AOPA out of this. All they have done is stated that they do not support the idea of an Ad campaign that could portray GA in a very bad light.
(It doesn't necessarily mean that AOPA doesn not support the idea of better or more streamlined procedures for getting a coastal clearance through WLM)
Dick Smith has said he had the support of AOPA pres. To which the CEO has come out and refuted the claim. Dick Smith still asserts his version is correct. T28D you make up your own mind. AOPA will remain on its own course. Those are the facts. This is still an inane attempt of Mr Smith to introduce US class D to all tower aerodromes in Australia.
US class D would still have a 5nm radius control zone around WLM. However, by simply making communication contact with said tower constitutes a clearance.( You still would be held to clear traffic inbound and outbound from the field) Failing that, Dick would still be able to overfly the aerodrome at 3000ft. Dick would not have to worry about R578A,B,C and E or R587 or R596 because under NAS these would all be rationalised into Military Operations Areas, Military Training Areas MTR and Warning areas for all offshore R. The only areas that will remain as R will be live firing areas. What will this mean? It will mean that a simple call to ATC (phone, to whom?. Radio ? ATC? Tower?) to ascertain what part has any activity and proceed through with caution, Active or Not! There should be no unneccessary delay to any GA aircraft by military airspace. This is Dick's dream. Because that is how they do it in the US. These are the characteristics left to impliment in NAS. Why did you wait till now to start aggitating Mr Smith? Are we setting up a precident to dazzle the new Transport Minister?
I have often wonder how the US military can have such bazaar mid airs like the one where a Mil F111 mistook a Commander690 for a KC135 and closed in at the usual speed only to realise too late they did not have a tanker in front of them. No points for guessing what happened next.
(It doesn't necessarily mean that AOPA doesn not support the idea of better or more streamlined procedures for getting a coastal clearance through WLM)
Dick Smith has said he had the support of AOPA pres. To which the CEO has come out and refuted the claim. Dick Smith still asserts his version is correct. T28D you make up your own mind. AOPA will remain on its own course. Those are the facts. This is still an inane attempt of Mr Smith to introduce US class D to all tower aerodromes in Australia.
US class D would still have a 5nm radius control zone around WLM. However, by simply making communication contact with said tower constitutes a clearance.( You still would be held to clear traffic inbound and outbound from the field) Failing that, Dick would still be able to overfly the aerodrome at 3000ft. Dick would not have to worry about R578A,B,C and E or R587 or R596 because under NAS these would all be rationalised into Military Operations Areas, Military Training Areas MTR and Warning areas for all offshore R. The only areas that will remain as R will be live firing areas. What will this mean? It will mean that a simple call to ATC (phone, to whom?. Radio ? ATC? Tower?) to ascertain what part has any activity and proceed through with caution, Active or Not! There should be no unneccessary delay to any GA aircraft by military airspace. This is Dick's dream. Because that is how they do it in the US. These are the characteristics left to impliment in NAS. Why did you wait till now to start aggitating Mr Smith? Are we setting up a precident to dazzle the new Transport Minister?
I have often wonder how the US military can have such bazaar mid airs like the one where a Mil F111 mistook a Commander690 for a KC135 and closed in at the usual speed only to realise too late they did not have a tanker in front of them. No points for guessing what happened next.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whats the problem!
I find it interesting that many blather on about a 'safety' issue to be held over water in the Willy coastal corridor.....
Funny how did they get there????
Coastal no doubt .... probably at 500' or below.
Were they thinking about being able to reach the coastline in the event of an engine failure then?? doubt it ...... to busy enjoying the view.
So if it is okay to fly over water and have a fat old time coastal low level then why is it such a big issue to hold over water for mil ops.
The RAAF ATC are professionals and do not hold you for fun. A lot is happening in the restricted areas east and west which for fast jets can only be 5 min transit to Willytown.... about the time most lighties would be reaching abeam centeline or the overhead!
So why don't you just smile, say thanks to ATC and be on your way.
Funny how did they get there????
Coastal no doubt .... probably at 500' or below.
Were they thinking about being able to reach the coastline in the event of an engine failure then?? doubt it ...... to busy enjoying the view.
So if it is okay to fly over water and have a fat old time coastal low level then why is it such a big issue to hold over water for mil ops.
The RAAF ATC are professionals and do not hold you for fun. A lot is happening in the restricted areas east and west which for fast jets can only be 5 min transit to Willytown.... about the time most lighties would be reaching abeam centeline or the overhead!
So why don't you just smile, say thanks to ATC and be on your way.
Dick said:
Yuckspeak's library of 1,000,000 for... "My crash or crash-through approach was an abject failure...".
Many have worked hard to make AOPA effective over the years, however the astuteness of those against assisting the GA community has very effectively prevented this.
Thread Starter
Capn Bloggs, I respect your right to believe that the present airspace and regulatory system is pretty satisfactory and does not need to be changed. I happen to have a different view. I do not have a “crash or crash-through approach.”
My suggestion is that you take the time to read the Unsafe Skies chapters (see here) on the Benalla accident, where 6 people unnecessarily lost their lives, and also the very serious Qantas incident at Canberra. I believe that if we upgrade the airspace and follow the Government policy for NAS, the chance of this type of accident and incident can be substantially reduced.
At the present time, more than 2 years after the publication of Unsafe Skies, there has been no substantive change in the airspace and procedures at Canberra or Benalla.
I wonder how many more people will die before we will grasp the nettle and make safety improvements which are well proven in other aviation countries.
Capn Bloggs, you tend to attack me personally rather than look at the issues involved. Do you think that air traffic controllers could be trained to check whether an aircraft approaching Benalla was actually heading for the correct waypoint and not 11 miles from it? Do you think the airspace at Canberra can remain with the Centre after the tower closes so a full radar service is provided?
The problem with resisting change is that probability catches up, and in inevitable accident takes place.
I’m sure there must be changes that you and I would agree on. Let’s find out what they are and work together on them. We may get somewhere!
My suggestion is that you take the time to read the Unsafe Skies chapters (see here) on the Benalla accident, where 6 people unnecessarily lost their lives, and also the very serious Qantas incident at Canberra. I believe that if we upgrade the airspace and follow the Government policy for NAS, the chance of this type of accident and incident can be substantially reduced.
At the present time, more than 2 years after the publication of Unsafe Skies, there has been no substantive change in the airspace and procedures at Canberra or Benalla.
I wonder how many more people will die before we will grasp the nettle and make safety improvements which are well proven in other aviation countries.
Capn Bloggs, you tend to attack me personally rather than look at the issues involved. Do you think that air traffic controllers could be trained to check whether an aircraft approaching Benalla was actually heading for the correct waypoint and not 11 miles from it? Do you think the airspace at Canberra can remain with the Centre after the tower closes so a full radar service is provided?
The problem with resisting change is that probability catches up, and in inevitable accident takes place.
I’m sure there must be changes that you and I would agree on. Let’s find out what they are and work together on them. We may get somewhere!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, the airspace around Canberra does go to Melbourne Centre when the tower and approach close up. The classification below A090 changes to class G though. I know what you're going to to say, it should be E to the deck almost. Now, that's all very well, however the controller who looks after Canberra at night also looks after most of SE Australia. I counted the number of instrument approaches to the main aerodromes in that area one day - over 70 - and that was before they took over the YAS and JVS sectors too. So add another 20 or 30 there. I don't believe ATC could provide a class E service with the current airspace divisions and ATC numbers. Too much airspace to carefully monitor all approaches.
Now, the Canberra incident was a number of holes in the Swiss cheese, not the fault of TAAAAAAAAAAAATS terrain monitoring, which I think you are getting at. The airspace, terrain and instrument approaches are very complex. The main reason the GPWS went off is the crew elected to hold at CCK at A050, which has a DME limit on it. I think what you want to see is ATC monitoring tracking with respect to terrain. In this case, the GPWS and the MSAW on TAAAAAAAATS would have gone off at around the same time. The hills rise rapidly. Now, if the crew had held at A060, there is no DME limit, just a speed limit for a 1 minute pattern. A better decision by far, but only intimate knowledge of each and every instrument plate by an ATC would have been able to pick the 'error' up.
We need more ATCers right now to maintain the level of service we are expected to provide. Increasing the amount of CTA without increasing our numbers will result in very poor levels of service, very busy ATCers and more than likely very busy AsA admin staff processing resignations (more than now).
Dick, if you really want to help, aim your efforts that you seem to be directing towards airspace reform into ATC recruitment & retention. If our numbers are right, then we can look at airspace reform. That's the basic idea.
Cheers,
NFR.
PS Seem you invite us to go flying with you, I'd like to ask you to come in plug in with me for a while. PM me if you are interested.
Now, the Canberra incident was a number of holes in the Swiss cheese, not the fault of TAAAAAAAAAAAATS terrain monitoring, which I think you are getting at. The airspace, terrain and instrument approaches are very complex. The main reason the GPWS went off is the crew elected to hold at CCK at A050, which has a DME limit on it. I think what you want to see is ATC monitoring tracking with respect to terrain. In this case, the GPWS and the MSAW on TAAAAAAAATS would have gone off at around the same time. The hills rise rapidly. Now, if the crew had held at A060, there is no DME limit, just a speed limit for a 1 minute pattern. A better decision by far, but only intimate knowledge of each and every instrument plate by an ATC would have been able to pick the 'error' up.
We need more ATCers right now to maintain the level of service we are expected to provide. Increasing the amount of CTA without increasing our numbers will result in very poor levels of service, very busy ATCers and more than likely very busy AsA admin staff processing resignations (more than now).
Dick, if you really want to help, aim your efforts that you seem to be directing towards airspace reform into ATC recruitment & retention. If our numbers are right, then we can look at airspace reform. That's the basic idea.
Cheers,
NFR.
PS Seem you invite us to go flying with you, I'd like to ask you to come in plug in with me for a while. PM me if you are interested.
Dick,
NFR has summed it up nicely. The monster that you created, AsA, is now in control (well, maybe not...)
And if you think I'm attacking you, I'm not even trying...yet. 
----------------------------------------
Capn
Mr Smith had nothing to do with creating Airservices Australia. That was done by a Labor Government splitting the CAA apart - well after Mr Smith's reign.
And if you're thinking of attacking anyone, I recommend you re-think your strategy.
Play the ball - not the man!
Tail Wheel
NFR has summed it up nicely. The monster that you created, AsA, is now in control (well, maybe not...)
And if you think I'm attacking you, I'm not even trying...yet.
----------------------------------------
Capn
Mr Smith had nothing to do with creating Airservices Australia. That was done by a Labor Government splitting the CAA apart - well after Mr Smith's reign.
And if you're thinking of attacking anyone, I recommend you re-think your strategy.
Play the ball - not the man!
Tail Wheel
I've been out of Australia for some time, yet am still involved in flying overseas.
Therefore please forgive me for not being too interested in the politics that seem to prevail in this thread. They may in fact, be important, but I'd just like to spend my little spare time airing this.
Surely Dick Smith is not trying to push these points for his own benefit, profit, or personal gains. He is a successful businessman, has achieved outstanding successes in aviation, and has inspired more than one Ppruner to commit aviation. I do hope that he is not a victim of the 'tall poppy' syndrome.
Whilst it's true that you can't please all of the people, all of the time, I do think that DS is certainly trying to improve aviation, at a time when the world is going crazy with 'enforcing new rules that we just made up...' The time when I remember flying as liberating and relaxing, seems to be on the way out, with ridiculous fees, rules, restrictions and possible lawsuits. Of course, safety should prevail, but not to the extent that we leave our aircraft permanently in the titanium hangar so as to improve statistics.
Why can't the Australian aviation fraternity can work together in a mature fashion to improve the flying envornment for everyone, rather than bickering?
A man such as Dick Smith can surely be more useful if kept onside, and I'm sure that he is only here to help.
And no, I'm not Dick Smith, not related to him, never worked for him, nor have been wined nor dined by the fella
Therefore please forgive me for not being too interested in the politics that seem to prevail in this thread. They may in fact, be important, but I'd just like to spend my little spare time airing this.
Surely Dick Smith is not trying to push these points for his own benefit, profit, or personal gains. He is a successful businessman, has achieved outstanding successes in aviation, and has inspired more than one Ppruner to commit aviation. I do hope that he is not a victim of the 'tall poppy' syndrome.
Whilst it's true that you can't please all of the people, all of the time, I do think that DS is certainly trying to improve aviation, at a time when the world is going crazy with 'enforcing new rules that we just made up...' The time when I remember flying as liberating and relaxing, seems to be on the way out, with ridiculous fees, rules, restrictions and possible lawsuits. Of course, safety should prevail, but not to the extent that we leave our aircraft permanently in the titanium hangar so as to improve statistics.
Why can't the Australian aviation fraternity can work together in a mature fashion to improve the flying envornment for everyone, rather than bickering?
A man such as Dick Smith can surely be more useful if kept onside, and I'm sure that he is only here to help.
And no, I'm not Dick Smith, not related to him, never worked for him, nor have been wined nor dined by the fella
Thread Starter
Ozbusdriver, I will be taking up No Further Requirements’ offer. It would be really worth my while for me to come up to date again on how the ATC side works. The last time I sat at a console was before TAAATS was introduced. I have PMd No Further Requirements to make arrangements.