25 years of holding at Williamtown
Dick Smith, Leadsled and T28D all have one thing in common. Crash through or crash? Crash and Burn? Crashed? EX? Say no more!
WLM airspace is WLM airspace. Why is everyone getting their knickers in a knot about operating in a control zone and under an approach path. May I suggest, we look at the idea of moving the reporting points further out and higher to allow for timely changes in tracks as required. It would appear that even 9nm out is too much to comprehend for some pilots. In order to make them give a timely request fro ATC you may well move them back another 6nm. This will still not negate the occurence of diversion or holds. You cannot control what pilots do in their activities when taking off or approaching to land so allowances have to be made for minor delays.
Using WLM as an example to introduce US style class D is disengenious.
WLM airspace is WLM airspace. Why is everyone getting their knickers in a knot about operating in a control zone and under an approach path. May I suggest, we look at the idea of moving the reporting points further out and higher to allow for timely changes in tracks as required. It would appear that even 9nm out is too much to comprehend for some pilots. In order to make them give a timely request fro ATC you may well move them back another 6nm. This will still not negate the occurence of diversion or holds. You cannot control what pilots do in their activities when taking off or approaching to land so allowances have to be made for minor delays.
Using WLM as an example to introduce US style class D is disengenious.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess it should not surprise anyone who reads this thread to see the so called recollections of the RAPAC meeting that took place in Sydney as given by LeadSled.
As a witness to the RAPAC there were indeed a large number of military people present but I believe that they were all representing the particular area for which they are subject matter experts.
The response from the RAAF to the issues that pertained to them were measured and clear albeit not necessarily the desired ones.
What was not mentioned was the fact that a presentation was made by one of the RAAF Officers explaining how they were attempting to rationalise airspace in preparation for new platforms and impede as little as possible the impact on civilian traffic. Seems very proactive!
With reference the subject of this thread, I do not believe that the young lady who responded to the questions about the Australia Day incident was in anyway "volcanic", in fact she made it quite clear to all that she was concerned with the events described and had investigated the incident thoroughly to ensure that the aircraft involved had not been put into an unsafe situation and merely stated what had been found on a review of tapes. It was also made very clear to the members of RAPAC that should any aircraft who received a clearance limit feel that they were in a genuine unsafe situation they should speak to ATC. It was also explained to the RAPAC that RAAF ATC are obliged to fully separate with the civilian RPT traffic that they control in and out of Newcastle airport and that this sometimes required civilian aircraft to be imposed a clearance limit, but that the military aircraft already flew different to try and leave the lane clear.
LeadSled also fails to mention that the individual who raised the Australia Day incident became highly emotive himself with respect to any civilian aircraft not being able to track wherever they wanted and was not open to any suggestion that in fact a full investigation had taken place and perhaps there were indeed two sides to the matter.
I think that this was a reasonable response from the Defence force, but can also see from having read this thread that it would not matter what response Defence gave at RAPAC that they would be misinterpreted and misrepresented to the readers here, there will always be parties here dissatisfied with any response, except of course that we move the Defence assets to an island far far away where they would impede nobody whilst they trained to ……oh that’s right defend this nation so that GA can fly!.
As a witness to the RAPAC there were indeed a large number of military people present but I believe that they were all representing the particular area for which they are subject matter experts.
The response from the RAAF to the issues that pertained to them were measured and clear albeit not necessarily the desired ones.
What was not mentioned was the fact that a presentation was made by one of the RAAF Officers explaining how they were attempting to rationalise airspace in preparation for new platforms and impede as little as possible the impact on civilian traffic. Seems very proactive!
With reference the subject of this thread, I do not believe that the young lady who responded to the questions about the Australia Day incident was in anyway "volcanic", in fact she made it quite clear to all that she was concerned with the events described and had investigated the incident thoroughly to ensure that the aircraft involved had not been put into an unsafe situation and merely stated what had been found on a review of tapes. It was also made very clear to the members of RAPAC that should any aircraft who received a clearance limit feel that they were in a genuine unsafe situation they should speak to ATC. It was also explained to the RAPAC that RAAF ATC are obliged to fully separate with the civilian RPT traffic that they control in and out of Newcastle airport and that this sometimes required civilian aircraft to be imposed a clearance limit, but that the military aircraft already flew different to try and leave the lane clear.
LeadSled also fails to mention that the individual who raised the Australia Day incident became highly emotive himself with respect to any civilian aircraft not being able to track wherever they wanted and was not open to any suggestion that in fact a full investigation had taken place and perhaps there were indeed two sides to the matter.
I think that this was a reasonable response from the Defence force, but can also see from having read this thread that it would not matter what response Defence gave at RAPAC that they would be misinterpreted and misrepresented to the readers here, there will always be parties here dissatisfied with any response, except of course that we move the Defence assets to an island far far away where they would impede nobody whilst they trained to ……oh that’s right defend this nation so that GA can fly!.
Thread Starter
Dircmt,If you are refering to me,you are incorrect. I have never requested ,or even suggested, that civilian traffic at Williamtown be "able to track wherever they wanted". Quite the opposite. I have constantly stated that the procedures should be updated so they reflect those that exist in other modern aviation countries.
You also imply that I was not open to any suggestion "that a full investigation had taken place" This is wrong as I have not commented on the matter at all.
In relation to the comment that a particular aircraft may not have been put in a dangerous situation(due to it being held over the ocean)-what about all the other aircraft that are?
Most importantly,it looks again if the Williamtown people are not even considering looking at more modern separation procedures and routing which would most likely eliminate the requirement to hold VFR aircraft.
Totally closed minds! Lets hope these people are not in charge if we have a war.
And by the way,it would matter what response defence gave at the RAPAC meeting- if they stated they were going to investigate how similar airspace was handled in other modern aviation countries there would be loud rejoicing all around!
You also imply that I was not open to any suggestion "that a full investigation had taken place" This is wrong as I have not commented on the matter at all.
In relation to the comment that a particular aircraft may not have been put in a dangerous situation(due to it being held over the ocean)-what about all the other aircraft that are?
Most importantly,it looks again if the Williamtown people are not even considering looking at more modern separation procedures and routing which would most likely eliminate the requirement to hold VFR aircraft.
Totally closed minds! Lets hope these people are not in charge if we have a war.
And by the way,it would matter what response defence gave at the RAPAC meeting- if they stated they were going to investigate how similar airspace was handled in other modern aviation countries there would be loud rejoicing all around!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 9th Feb 2008 at 01:44. Reason: to add a positive point
Using WLM as an example to introduce US style class D is disengenious because-
Even if US class D was placed at YWLM, there would still be the same problem. WLM is located close to the beach. Any aircraft using the coastal route under a US class D would still be flying through what should be considered as "STERILE" airspace for the use of arriving/departing aircraft to/from 12/30.
Even if US class D vertical limits were placed around YWLM there would still be the issue of what airspace to place above a towered aerodrome. Certainly not class E as learned around YMAY. Aircraft attempting to overfly an active YWLM would still need a clearance to do so.
I am against the idea of US class D in the particular instant that a clearance is implied once ATC has acknowledged your transmission.
The "contrary" (I would expect to be the truthful) report on the NSW RAPAC says that the RAAF is rationalising ahead of a new platform. Why don't we wait and see what happens next?
Even if US class D was placed at YWLM, there would still be the same problem. WLM is located close to the beach. Any aircraft using the coastal route under a US class D would still be flying through what should be considered as "STERILE" airspace for the use of arriving/departing aircraft to/from 12/30.
Even if US class D vertical limits were placed around YWLM there would still be the issue of what airspace to place above a towered aerodrome. Certainly not class E as learned around YMAY. Aircraft attempting to overfly an active YWLM would still need a clearance to do so.
I am against the idea of US class D in the particular instant that a clearance is implied once ATC has acknowledged your transmission.
The "contrary" (I would expect to be the truthful) report on the NSW RAPAC says that the RAAF is rationalising ahead of a new platform. Why don't we wait and see what happens next?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith, just to clarify, I believe that I referred to the individual that was present at RAPAC and I do not believe that you were there?
Also, I believe and I may be wrong that it was stated that various different methods were being looked at processing of aircraft through the airspace, including flight planning at higher levels, but that the training areas to the north were a consideration. I think that there is an issue with lack of visual reference points for VFR aircraft to be given alternative tracking via without building in lots of extra track miles.
Also, I believe and I may be wrong that it was stated that various different methods were being looked at processing of aircraft through the airspace, including flight planning at higher levels, but that the training areas to the north were a consideration. I think that there is an issue with lack of visual reference points for VFR aircraft to be given alternative tracking via without building in lots of extra track miles.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the Dog house
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Food for thought
In my very humble opinion, RAPAC metings, may not change much from the Mil side, as there is often no ownership of decisions taken or promises made,
( people talk the talk but dont always have the authority to walk the walk and they often subsequently get promoted or moved). If anything, class C airspace in Oz is in many cases an overkill. Compared to class D what are the working diffferences? Without digging out the books DOC 4444 etc, I would suggest only one thing; ATC dont have to separate VFR from IFR. In real terms this means that one doesnt have to always prove a standard but merely ensure that no confliction occurs! Therefore ATC will still separate and flow all traffic within the circuit area to the runway. But, there is a big difference; the Task is easier and the Process is infinitely more expeditious for the user. Dont know Willies airspace or procedures, but from my experience from working several hundred fast jet movements a day plus civil IFR etc into a murky UK mil airfield with no airspace , basically class G, and far less into a CAVOK Nth Queensland one with class C, the rules in Oz are complex and inexpeditious for many users! And while you may quote safety this and safety that, what about places like Avalon with RPT and no ATC!! And TIBA? WTF? Everything has a cost -hence Risk management strategies. Too safe is inefficient! Has Willy got one for this coastal VFR route for example? Does it need one?
As DS eludes to, flying time is money and there is obviously a conflict of interests around the bazaars - currently focused on Willy (watch this space -TVL still doesnt have a traffic management plan despite various RAPACS, rising traffic levels and a general lack of experience!)
Oz ATC has the talent but needs to be a little more receptive to change and perhaps look at alternative uses of its more popular bits of airspace. It needs a lot more use of radar, particularly up the east coast,( more controllers I know) it should consider flexible use of airspace and if this ever gets put in place look at introducing a RIS, RAS system AKA UK, (class E?) and move towards a unified civilian ICAO approved / licensed workforce (with a reserve committment for those that want to go meet the tactical ATC requirements of Queen and country AKA NZ- after all the RAAF are planning to all but civilianise the southern Bases, via APS, during 2008- how many left in blue then? And what will be their core function? RPT into TVL or Willy??)
As an aside, always wondered why the F18s do the initial and pitch at a level 1500 at not above 420 kts! Not very tactical. Perhaps due to an IFR rule, But why IFR on a CAVOK day? In Uk all fast jets came back to the circuit at about 500 feet at anything up to 520 kts and did a climbing break crosswind to 1000 ft to wash off the speed. Any lighties about were kept out of the way by overflying at 1500 -2000 or by holding somewhere out of the way. Simple really! And thats with a sh&t load more aircraft and airspace extending basically to about 1500 ft ( protected) out to only 5 nms! Still goes on today. Risk managed of course!!
DogGone:
( people talk the talk but dont always have the authority to walk the walk and they often subsequently get promoted or moved). If anything, class C airspace in Oz is in many cases an overkill. Compared to class D what are the working diffferences? Without digging out the books DOC 4444 etc, I would suggest only one thing; ATC dont have to separate VFR from IFR. In real terms this means that one doesnt have to always prove a standard but merely ensure that no confliction occurs! Therefore ATC will still separate and flow all traffic within the circuit area to the runway. But, there is a big difference; the Task is easier and the Process is infinitely more expeditious for the user. Dont know Willies airspace or procedures, but from my experience from working several hundred fast jet movements a day plus civil IFR etc into a murky UK mil airfield with no airspace , basically class G, and far less into a CAVOK Nth Queensland one with class C, the rules in Oz are complex and inexpeditious for many users! And while you may quote safety this and safety that, what about places like Avalon with RPT and no ATC!! And TIBA? WTF? Everything has a cost -hence Risk management strategies. Too safe is inefficient! Has Willy got one for this coastal VFR route for example? Does it need one?
As DS eludes to, flying time is money and there is obviously a conflict of interests around the bazaars - currently focused on Willy (watch this space -TVL still doesnt have a traffic management plan despite various RAPACS, rising traffic levels and a general lack of experience!)
Oz ATC has the talent but needs to be a little more receptive to change and perhaps look at alternative uses of its more popular bits of airspace. It needs a lot more use of radar, particularly up the east coast,( more controllers I know) it should consider flexible use of airspace and if this ever gets put in place look at introducing a RIS, RAS system AKA UK, (class E?) and move towards a unified civilian ICAO approved / licensed workforce (with a reserve committment for those that want to go meet the tactical ATC requirements of Queen and country AKA NZ- after all the RAAF are planning to all but civilianise the southern Bases, via APS, during 2008- how many left in blue then? And what will be their core function? RPT into TVL or Willy??)
As an aside, always wondered why the F18s do the initial and pitch at a level 1500 at not above 420 kts! Not very tactical. Perhaps due to an IFR rule, But why IFR on a CAVOK day? In Uk all fast jets came back to the circuit at about 500 feet at anything up to 520 kts and did a climbing break crosswind to 1000 ft to wash off the speed. Any lighties about were kept out of the way by overflying at 1500 -2000 or by holding somewhere out of the way. Simple really! And thats with a sh&t load more aircraft and airspace extending basically to about 1500 ft ( protected) out to only 5 nms! Still goes on today. Risk managed of course!!
DogGone:
Last edited by BurglarsDog; 9th Feb 2008 at 12:15.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an aside, always wondered why the F18s do the initial and pitch at a level 1500 at not above 420 kts! Not very tactical. Perhaps due to an IFR rule, But why IFR on a CAVOK day?
Tindal is a different kettle of fish, anything goes (almost).
Thread Starter
BurglarsDog, thanks for your important post. I hope all Aussie air traffic controllers (both civil and military) read it and take note of your comment:
Yes, I have found from talking to air traffic controllers in other countries this is the whole point of Class D, and also the US system in Class C – where they have merging target procedures. That is, it allows the controller to get the aircraft closer together for sighting each other. Our present “standard” which seems to be used – quite often 3 nautical miles – means you cannot see the other aircraft at this distance.
What standard are they using at Williamtown, where they hold aircraft many miles away? I heard recently of a helicopter being held orbiting at Anna Bay, which is 11 miles to the north east of Williamtown, because of a civil aircraft about to land.
The whole key of course is that a small team of Willy controllers being sent overseas, to both the UK and the US, could quickly find out if there were more efficient ways of safely moving traffic – especially when we are referring to civil traffic.
I would suggest only one thing; ATC dont have to separate VFR from IFR. In real terms this means that one doesnt have to always prove a standard…
What standard are they using at Williamtown, where they hold aircraft many miles away? I heard recently of a helicopter being held orbiting at Anna Bay, which is 11 miles to the north east of Williamtown, because of a civil aircraft about to land.
The whole key of course is that a small team of Willy controllers being sent overseas, to both the UK and the US, could quickly find out if there were more efficient ways of safely moving traffic – especially when we are referring to civil traffic.
All,
Actually, my notes refer to a statement, I believe referring to the above, in strong terms about the extent of RAAF "restricted" (be it a zone or a restricted area) compared to countries with far more military traffic, which exist quite happily and safely with much smaller military control zones than the RAAF seems to need. Have a look at a standard NATO zone (RAF) or the US zones and Restricted (as opposed to MOA) airspace.
There was, as I recall, no demand to "track where ever they wanted".
As to a "full investigation has taken place" --- Caesar investigated Caesar and found Caesar had no case to answer ----- As Laurence Welke would have said: "Wuunnerfull, wuunnerfull".
The real and valid question is:
Why does the RAAF, a relatively small force, require such huge "dedicated" airspace, compared to numerically (both in aircraft numbers and operational/training activity) much larger air forces ??
"Because it has always been thus" is not really a good enough answer.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled also fails to mention that the individual who raised the Australia Day incident became highly emotive himself with respect to any civilian aircraft not being able to track wherever they wanted and was not open to any suggestion that in fact a full investigation had taken place and perhaps there were indeed two sides to the matter.
There was, as I recall, no demand to "track where ever they wanted".
As to a "full investigation has taken place" --- Caesar investigated Caesar and found Caesar had no case to answer ----- As Laurence Welke would have said: "Wuunnerfull, wuunnerfull".
The real and valid question is:
Why does the RAAF, a relatively small force, require such huge "dedicated" airspace, compared to numerically (both in aircraft numbers and operational/training activity) much larger air forces ??
"Because it has always been thus" is not really a good enough answer.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to a "full investigation has taken place" --- Caesar investigated Caesar and found Caesar had no case to answer ----- As Laurence Welke would have said: "Wuunnerfull, wuunnerfull".
Thread Starter
Here is some good news. I have received a number of reports that they are changing some of the procedures at Williamtown. For example, an aircraft going up the light aircraft lane was given 1,000 feet as the altitude – better than 500 feet if there is a necessity to orbit.
More importantly, aircraft have been allowed over the top. Recently a VFR aircraft was given a clearance over the top at 3,500 feet whilst three RPT aircraft were coming in. The VFR aircraft was actually right over the top of the field when one of the RPTs landed.
Congratulations to those at Williamtown who are making the changes. I “dips me lid” to you.
More importantly, aircraft have been allowed over the top. Recently a VFR aircraft was given a clearance over the top at 3,500 feet whilst three RPT aircraft were coming in. The VFR aircraft was actually right over the top of the field when one of the RPTs landed.
Congratulations to those at Williamtown who are making the changes. I “dips me lid” to you.
The first time this has happened?
Or has it been happening for years when pilots requested it and traffic allowed????? Amazing too, that they didn't have to change airspace regulations as well to do this now....or in the past.
Note, this was written and researched by me. No third party input was required or sought. All thoughts,opinions and advice are my own. No henchman was required,paid for in part or full.
Or has it been happening for years when pilots requested it and traffic allowed????? Amazing too, that they didn't have to change airspace regulations as well to do this now....or in the past.
Note, this was written and researched by me. No third party input was required or sought. All thoughts,opinions and advice are my own. No henchman was required,paid for in part or full.
Thread Starter
Great service at Williamtown
I came down through the Williamtown airspace yesterday afternoon in my helicopter. On board were my wife and three grandchildren – one of whom is under two years old and can’t swim.
As I passed Port Stephens heading south and dropped to 500 feet, it became obvious that there were a number of IFR aircraft heading into Williamtown.
I dreaded what was going to happen, but it was not so. The friendly controller called me and advised that there was a lot of IFR traffic and I could either hold at Anna Bay or track overhead the Williamtown airfield at 1,000 feet. As holding at Anna Bay would have taken me out over a frighteningly rough ocean at 500 feet, I opted to track to Williamtown. From there I was tracked to Nobbys. It probably put a slight extra distance on my route but meant that flight safety was maintained.
The controller even apologised for the extra tracking that was required. I thanked him, and here I would like to say to whoever has made these changes, “I ‘dips me lid’ to you.”
Flying a bit of extra distance over land is always preferred to orbiting over a rough ocean with young children at 500 feet.
As I passed Port Stephens heading south and dropped to 500 feet, it became obvious that there were a number of IFR aircraft heading into Williamtown.
I dreaded what was going to happen, but it was not so. The friendly controller called me and advised that there was a lot of IFR traffic and I could either hold at Anna Bay or track overhead the Williamtown airfield at 1,000 feet. As holding at Anna Bay would have taken me out over a frighteningly rough ocean at 500 feet, I opted to track to Williamtown. From there I was tracked to Nobbys. It probably put a slight extra distance on my route but meant that flight safety was maintained.
The controller even apologised for the extra tracking that was required. I thanked him, and here I would like to say to whoever has made these changes, “I ‘dips me lid’ to you.”
Flying a bit of extra distance over land is always preferred to orbiting over a rough ocean with young children at 500 feet.
Pardoned PPRuNer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: GlassGumtree
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying a bit of extra distance over land is always preferred to orbiting over a rough ocean with young children at 500 feet.
Why is that Dick? I mean what are the odds of the engine failing
TT
Thread Starter
Traffic,the odds are very small but still worth reducing when it can be done at little expense.
By the way I understand we can thank AOPA for encouraging the RAAF to make the improvements.
By the way I understand we can thank AOPA for encouraging the RAAF to make the improvements.
When Angus Houston, the then Chief of Air Force, sat with me on the Aviation Reform Group over three years ago at endless meetings
.... be that as it may, I don't believe that the RAAF Controllers at Williamtown, or any Controllers for that matter, are responsible for providing clearances in direct relation to the age and swimming abilities of the passengers that you choose to transport. You ... knowing that there was a strong possibility that you might have to either track , or hold over water near Williamtown ... made the conscious decision to take those young children on board. ... pilot in command, and all that !