25 years of holding at Williamtown
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How they do it in the US
I'm no expert, but post the following that I dredged up from US AOPA. As I understand it, they're not exactly huge fans of the US military, so I found this interesting. Dick talks about Military Operations Areas, so I suppose this is part of what he wants. Further comment I leave to the professionals, except to highlight what I thought was an interesting statistic, 3/4ths down the article. It says that a US AOPA survey indicates that 73% of members would not fly through a Military Operating Area if they didn't know the status. What it doesn't say is that 27% would do...what? As I said, I leave further comment to those who know more than I do.
AOPA
Safety Hot Spot
How Low Do They Go?
In military airspace, when it's hot, look out
BY TIM WRIGHT (From AOPA Pilot, January 2005.)
Let's face it — 480 knots is moving pretty fast no matter where you are. But at 500 feet agl, pulling 8.5 Gs with a 70-degree bank, "pretty fast" seems something of an understatement. When the world below is slipping past your wing tips so close and so fast, you don't want unnecessary distractions. Just an additional, unintended 10 to 15 degrees of bank mean you slam into the ground in about three seconds. It's not a place for surprises or inattention.
In an attempt to get a better picture of how the military uses low-level airspace, the U.S. Air Force agreed to let AOPA tag along for a flight on VR1754, one of the many high-speed, low-level military training routes (MTRs) scattered across the mid-Atlantic coast. But with the weather over West Virginia holding a steady 300-foot ceiling our VFR plan was scrapped before we could launch from Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia.
With our original plan in the trash, my pilot and guardian from the 71st Fighter Squadron, a 20-something blond-haired, blue-eyed walking recruiting poster named Capt. Jared Santos, proposed plan B. "Vic," as he introduced himself by phone a few weeks before, said we could cancel the flight altogether or switch to the Farmville MOA (military operations area) for routine low-level training. The decision took less than a second to consider and, as plan B went into action, Vic canceled VR1754 and filed for Farmville.
The F-15 is designed to be a high-altitude interceptor. Its job is to fly high and shoot down bad guys from far away. But as most military folks will tell you, "The enemy has a vote," and he won't always fight the way you want him to. To be ready, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, and other air superiority fighters need to come down to Earth and practice combat operations in a low-altitude environment. That need is why the Farmville MOA, a golf-club-shape chunk of airspace over the rolling Piedmont of Virginia, was created.
With a full-bird colonel for his wingman, Vic leads us into the MOA with a steady step down from 12,000 feet msl to 1,000 feet agl. Radio calls to Washington Center air traffic control provide the local altimeter setting and initiate the MOA as being "hot." In honor of my civilian status, it was deemed beforehand that Vic would try to maintain 1,000 feet agl instead of the normal 500 feet and we'd slow to 420 knots from a typical 480 knots. Vic would later describe the flight as "pretty vanilla."
Once inside the MOA, Vic warns we're about to take some Gs as a "warmup" for the rest of the flight. Immediately we violently roll into a series of right and left turns. Each turn develops at least 6 Gs and as much as 8.5 Gs for as long as 30 seconds. The camera in my hand becomes nearly impossible to keep to my eye and my stomach starts working its way to my toes.
With the G warmup out of the way, we began flying what the Air Force calls "tactical turns." In short, the two aircraft take turns making high-G, 45-to-90-degree heading changes in order to check each other's blind spots with radar and eyeballs. Then they repeat the process to the opposite direction so that they snake their way across the MOA.
It didn't take too many turns before I began seeking the relief of a barf bag. Vic rolled level and called "One-Bravo is code two" over the radio to wingman Col. Creid Johnson. That told Johnson we'd be flying straight and level so I could begin heaving. A few seconds later I was in my own world when Vic's urgent voice and sharp words penetrated my consciousness. I pulled my head out of my little white bag in a futile attempt to see a Cessna that Vic had spotted cruising southbound through the middle of the MOA.
The irritation in Vic's voice as he directed my gaze was unmistakable and more understandable with my new enlightenment. At these speeds and altitudes, just avoiding the ground and your wingman is a lot of work. Add to that the need for situational awareness regarding other aircraft, navigation requirements, communications, and weapons tactics, and you've got a "task saturated" environment for the pilot.
As a general aviation pilot, I've always been too chicken to fly into a hot MOA because my first flight instructor instilled a simultaneous fear of God and MOAs — and I'm glad he did. Now I know firsthand that when a GA aircraft flies through the middle of maneuvering jets, it's like a blind man walking through traffic. With up to 20 military aircraft crammed into a chunk of sky during training for major strikes, the risk of a collision is so high for everyone that the military stops what it's doing until the GA aircraft has cleared the area.
While MOAs and MTRs are special-use airspace, they are not restricted airspace. Air Force pilots are quick to point out that civilian and military aircraft have equal rights to the airspace even when the airspace is active. "It's see and avoid," Vic repeatedly stated with a shake of his head. "Even though it's legal, it doesn't make it smart."
Vic and his fellow pilots don't try to mask their incredulity to what they see as the enormous safety risks that simultaneous military and civilian operations can create in a hot MOA. From my back-seat vantage point, where all I had to do was watch, listen, and accurately barf into my little white bag, I became acutely aware that this type of flying is enormously demanding and dangerous without including the potential aerial landmines of GA aircraft. One Langley pilot said he was convinced that the vast majority of GA pilots just don't care if MOAs are hot. However, according to AOPA surveys, at least 73 percent of the members say they will divert around MOA airspace if they're unable to learn if it is hot or cold. In fact, the inability to get information regarding the status of special-use airspace is seen as one of the biggest concerns for the GA community. With the upsurge in military training since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the problem has grown. Thankfully, because of AOPA's education and persistence, progress is being made as the military has come to understand GA concerns. Recently, the controlling agency frequencies for each slice of airspace have started appearing on new charts. Hopefully this will give GA pilots a direct link to current, real-time information. The FAA has even begun a new Web site (http://sua.faa.gov/atcaaSplash.jsp) to help notify all pilots when areas across the country are hot and when others should be (see "Consulting the AP/1B," page 75).
Whether they're flying in a MOA or along an MTR, some GA pilots assume that military pilots always see them on radar. That's a huge assumption. A busted radar is not a go/no-go decision for many missions. In fact, during our 20 minutes at Farmville, the wingman's radar was acting up and never displayed either of the two GA aircraft that flew through the MOA. Further clouding the matter is that the on-board radar is not designed to look for GA aircraft. The algorithms that control what displays on radar are written to see larger, faster-moving targets. It's entirely possible that the radar may see a GA aircraft, but not display it because of the "Ground Moving Target Inhibitor," a setting on the radar designed to filter out ground clutter. If a target is slow enough, the radar thinks it's a car or truck and won't display it.
There's also the matter of not having enough of a radar return in the first place. Gliders, Piper Cubs, and other small aircraft may not have enough metal in them to even return a signal. And if they do return, their position in relation to the radar may further reduce what little signal they have. Which takes us back to "see and avoid."
Back on the ground at Langley, Vic is at a dry-erase board with a fistful of multicolored markers. Using different colors to represent aircraft, pilot visual coverage, radar coverage, and flight paths, he sketches out a spaghetti of colored lines to diagram tactical turns. As part of the discussion, Vic stresses the importance of knowing where your wingman is at all times. It wasn't too long ago that a wingman looked down to adjust his radar during a four-ship turn and lost sight of his lead. When he looked up, he misidentified another aircraft as his lead. The ensuing collision killed the lead pilot and both aircraft were lost.
At 480 knots, an aircraft covers 8 miles a minute or 1 mile every 7.5 seconds, says Vic. With a GA aircraft crossing Vic's flight path at two miles, a distance that he considers realistic for sighting another aircraft visually in the typical mid-Atlantic haze, that gives a maximum of 15 seconds before the sky begins to rain twisted aluminum. In those 15 seconds, the GA pilot should hope that Vic isn't distracted by reading a chart, adjusting his radar, making a radio change, or any number of things. "Do the math," says Vic. "That's a short time to die."
Unfortunately for the GA pilot, his chances of seeing a military aircraft closing in on him aren't very high. Combat aircraft are deliberately painted to make them hard to see, their flight tactics are meant to make them difficult to spot, and the visibility from GA aircraft is often poor compared to that out of a military canopy. While admitting there is no way to know it for a fact, Vic and his fellow pilots are convinced that few GA pilots ever know that they — the military — are nearby.
If you spot a military aircraft at your altitude and suspect he is unaware of your presence, some suggest raising your wing to make yourself more visible. If you have enough altitude, Vic suggests you make like a bird and descend. At the speeds the military flies, you're essentially motionless to them and you're not going to outrun or outclimb them. Also, if you see one fast target moving across your windshield, a collision threat most likely still exists because combat aircraft almost never fly solo. Formations of four to eight aircraft are common, and GA pilots have been surprised to find themselves bracketed right, left, top, and bottom by passing aircraft. The military pilot's reaction, if he does spot you, should be reflexive training, and most likely he'll instinctively "climb to cope." He'll convert airspeed to altitude to give himself time to determine what is happening and what his options are. The reduced speed and higher altitude give him time to fix problems and improve his chances for a successful ejection. Last year, an F-15E on VR1752 crossed paths with a vulture at 700 feet agl near Callaway, Virginia. The bird went down the right intake and while being converted to sausage it destroyed the engine. The engine caught fire, turbine blades went flying like shrapnel, electrical and hydraulic lines were cut, and the Eagle started slowly rolling out of control to the right. After riding through a complete roll, the crew was able to safely eject partly because the pilot was able to convert airspeed to altitude.
While MOAs are clearly marked on sectionals, the thin gray lines marking MTRs can be somewhat misleading. The gray lines supposedly indicate the centerline of the route, but aircraft can be anywhere within the corridor that the line helps define. Muddying the waters, the charts don't show the multiple alternate entry and exit points and corridors that may accompany a route, nor do they indicate that the centerline is frequently well away from the center of the route corridor. For instance, VR100 in New Mexico shows one route segment to be five nautical miles right and three nm left of the centerline. Another segment of the same route is listed as two nm right and 28 nm left. Most routes, however, tend to be between three and five nm on either side of the centerline. Like MOAs, they ought to be avoided when they are hot. If you plan to fly in an MTR, the military emphatically urges you to contact a flight service station or the controlling agency to learn if the route will be hot. They'd also like you to know the route's location and what air bases are in your area so you'll know where to look and what aircraft to look for.
Unfortunately some GA pilots, like Al Carpenter, are caught between a rock and a hard place. His airfield lies within five nautical miles of the centerlines for five busy MTRs. Two of those centerlines are a mile or less away from his airfield. "If I didn't fly when it was hot," complains this former Navy fighter pilot and multiyear guest at the Hanoi Hilton, "I would never fly!" Even though Carpenter has had jets at pattern altitude, he doesn't consider them to be a major problem. Just "keep your head up and on a swivel" and assume all routes are always hot. After all, he says, "You are never relieved of your responsibility to see and avoid."
Right or wrong, it appears many military pilots are convinced that a large segment of the GA population is reckless when it comes to flying in hot, special-use airspace. While studies and anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise, it's plain from my 20 minutes over Farmsville (with two GA aircraft going through the MOA) that there's reason for their belief. While wrapping up this story, I sent out an e-mail to some of my flying buddies asking about their experiences. Leo Callahan, a former Air Force pilot who now flies GA, wrote back saying, "If the MOA is active, I don't fly there. If I cannot contact the controlling agency, I don't fly there. I spent many hours flying in MOAs during my Air Force career and I have no intentions of playing with F-15s, A-10s, or any other high-performance machines. It could ruin everyone's day."
Whether through mistake, need, or defiance, GA pilots will continue to fly in hot special-use airspace, a fact that doesn't sit well with the military. In some instances, these flights are essentially unavoidable. For the vast majority of us, they're not. When this airspace is hot, it's best that GA pilots avoid it for the simple reason that we'd all like to live to fly another day. As CFI Becky Luther says, "there are no rules to stop them, only common sense."
Tim Wright is a pilot and freelance writer and photographer living in Richmond.
AOPA
Safety Hot Spot
How Low Do They Go?
In military airspace, when it's hot, look out
BY TIM WRIGHT (From AOPA Pilot, January 2005.)
Let's face it — 480 knots is moving pretty fast no matter where you are. But at 500 feet agl, pulling 8.5 Gs with a 70-degree bank, "pretty fast" seems something of an understatement. When the world below is slipping past your wing tips so close and so fast, you don't want unnecessary distractions. Just an additional, unintended 10 to 15 degrees of bank mean you slam into the ground in about three seconds. It's not a place for surprises or inattention.
In an attempt to get a better picture of how the military uses low-level airspace, the U.S. Air Force agreed to let AOPA tag along for a flight on VR1754, one of the many high-speed, low-level military training routes (MTRs) scattered across the mid-Atlantic coast. But with the weather over West Virginia holding a steady 300-foot ceiling our VFR plan was scrapped before we could launch from Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia.
With our original plan in the trash, my pilot and guardian from the 71st Fighter Squadron, a 20-something blond-haired, blue-eyed walking recruiting poster named Capt. Jared Santos, proposed plan B. "Vic," as he introduced himself by phone a few weeks before, said we could cancel the flight altogether or switch to the Farmville MOA (military operations area) for routine low-level training. The decision took less than a second to consider and, as plan B went into action, Vic canceled VR1754 and filed for Farmville.
The F-15 is designed to be a high-altitude interceptor. Its job is to fly high and shoot down bad guys from far away. But as most military folks will tell you, "The enemy has a vote," and he won't always fight the way you want him to. To be ready, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, and other air superiority fighters need to come down to Earth and practice combat operations in a low-altitude environment. That need is why the Farmville MOA, a golf-club-shape chunk of airspace over the rolling Piedmont of Virginia, was created.
With a full-bird colonel for his wingman, Vic leads us into the MOA with a steady step down from 12,000 feet msl to 1,000 feet agl. Radio calls to Washington Center air traffic control provide the local altimeter setting and initiate the MOA as being "hot." In honor of my civilian status, it was deemed beforehand that Vic would try to maintain 1,000 feet agl instead of the normal 500 feet and we'd slow to 420 knots from a typical 480 knots. Vic would later describe the flight as "pretty vanilla."
Once inside the MOA, Vic warns we're about to take some Gs as a "warmup" for the rest of the flight. Immediately we violently roll into a series of right and left turns. Each turn develops at least 6 Gs and as much as 8.5 Gs for as long as 30 seconds. The camera in my hand becomes nearly impossible to keep to my eye and my stomach starts working its way to my toes.
With the G warmup out of the way, we began flying what the Air Force calls "tactical turns." In short, the two aircraft take turns making high-G, 45-to-90-degree heading changes in order to check each other's blind spots with radar and eyeballs. Then they repeat the process to the opposite direction so that they snake their way across the MOA.
It didn't take too many turns before I began seeking the relief of a barf bag. Vic rolled level and called "One-Bravo is code two" over the radio to wingman Col. Creid Johnson. That told Johnson we'd be flying straight and level so I could begin heaving. A few seconds later I was in my own world when Vic's urgent voice and sharp words penetrated my consciousness. I pulled my head out of my little white bag in a futile attempt to see a Cessna that Vic had spotted cruising southbound through the middle of the MOA.
The irritation in Vic's voice as he directed my gaze was unmistakable and more understandable with my new enlightenment. At these speeds and altitudes, just avoiding the ground and your wingman is a lot of work. Add to that the need for situational awareness regarding other aircraft, navigation requirements, communications, and weapons tactics, and you've got a "task saturated" environment for the pilot.
As a general aviation pilot, I've always been too chicken to fly into a hot MOA because my first flight instructor instilled a simultaneous fear of God and MOAs — and I'm glad he did. Now I know firsthand that when a GA aircraft flies through the middle of maneuvering jets, it's like a blind man walking through traffic. With up to 20 military aircraft crammed into a chunk of sky during training for major strikes, the risk of a collision is so high for everyone that the military stops what it's doing until the GA aircraft has cleared the area.
While MOAs and MTRs are special-use airspace, they are not restricted airspace. Air Force pilots are quick to point out that civilian and military aircraft have equal rights to the airspace even when the airspace is active. "It's see and avoid," Vic repeatedly stated with a shake of his head. "Even though it's legal, it doesn't make it smart."
Vic and his fellow pilots don't try to mask their incredulity to what they see as the enormous safety risks that simultaneous military and civilian operations can create in a hot MOA. From my back-seat vantage point, where all I had to do was watch, listen, and accurately barf into my little white bag, I became acutely aware that this type of flying is enormously demanding and dangerous without including the potential aerial landmines of GA aircraft. One Langley pilot said he was convinced that the vast majority of GA pilots just don't care if MOAs are hot. However, according to AOPA surveys, at least 73 percent of the members say they will divert around MOA airspace if they're unable to learn if it is hot or cold. In fact, the inability to get information regarding the status of special-use airspace is seen as one of the biggest concerns for the GA community. With the upsurge in military training since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the problem has grown. Thankfully, because of AOPA's education and persistence, progress is being made as the military has come to understand GA concerns. Recently, the controlling agency frequencies for each slice of airspace have started appearing on new charts. Hopefully this will give GA pilots a direct link to current, real-time information. The FAA has even begun a new Web site (http://sua.faa.gov/atcaaSplash.jsp) to help notify all pilots when areas across the country are hot and when others should be (see "Consulting the AP/1B," page 75).
Whether they're flying in a MOA or along an MTR, some GA pilots assume that military pilots always see them on radar. That's a huge assumption. A busted radar is not a go/no-go decision for many missions. In fact, during our 20 minutes at Farmville, the wingman's radar was acting up and never displayed either of the two GA aircraft that flew through the MOA. Further clouding the matter is that the on-board radar is not designed to look for GA aircraft. The algorithms that control what displays on radar are written to see larger, faster-moving targets. It's entirely possible that the radar may see a GA aircraft, but not display it because of the "Ground Moving Target Inhibitor," a setting on the radar designed to filter out ground clutter. If a target is slow enough, the radar thinks it's a car or truck and won't display it.
There's also the matter of not having enough of a radar return in the first place. Gliders, Piper Cubs, and other small aircraft may not have enough metal in them to even return a signal. And if they do return, their position in relation to the radar may further reduce what little signal they have. Which takes us back to "see and avoid."
Back on the ground at Langley, Vic is at a dry-erase board with a fistful of multicolored markers. Using different colors to represent aircraft, pilot visual coverage, radar coverage, and flight paths, he sketches out a spaghetti of colored lines to diagram tactical turns. As part of the discussion, Vic stresses the importance of knowing where your wingman is at all times. It wasn't too long ago that a wingman looked down to adjust his radar during a four-ship turn and lost sight of his lead. When he looked up, he misidentified another aircraft as his lead. The ensuing collision killed the lead pilot and both aircraft were lost.
At 480 knots, an aircraft covers 8 miles a minute or 1 mile every 7.5 seconds, says Vic. With a GA aircraft crossing Vic's flight path at two miles, a distance that he considers realistic for sighting another aircraft visually in the typical mid-Atlantic haze, that gives a maximum of 15 seconds before the sky begins to rain twisted aluminum. In those 15 seconds, the GA pilot should hope that Vic isn't distracted by reading a chart, adjusting his radar, making a radio change, or any number of things. "Do the math," says Vic. "That's a short time to die."
Unfortunately for the GA pilot, his chances of seeing a military aircraft closing in on him aren't very high. Combat aircraft are deliberately painted to make them hard to see, their flight tactics are meant to make them difficult to spot, and the visibility from GA aircraft is often poor compared to that out of a military canopy. While admitting there is no way to know it for a fact, Vic and his fellow pilots are convinced that few GA pilots ever know that they — the military — are nearby.
If you spot a military aircraft at your altitude and suspect he is unaware of your presence, some suggest raising your wing to make yourself more visible. If you have enough altitude, Vic suggests you make like a bird and descend. At the speeds the military flies, you're essentially motionless to them and you're not going to outrun or outclimb them. Also, if you see one fast target moving across your windshield, a collision threat most likely still exists because combat aircraft almost never fly solo. Formations of four to eight aircraft are common, and GA pilots have been surprised to find themselves bracketed right, left, top, and bottom by passing aircraft. The military pilot's reaction, if he does spot you, should be reflexive training, and most likely he'll instinctively "climb to cope." He'll convert airspeed to altitude to give himself time to determine what is happening and what his options are. The reduced speed and higher altitude give him time to fix problems and improve his chances for a successful ejection. Last year, an F-15E on VR1752 crossed paths with a vulture at 700 feet agl near Callaway, Virginia. The bird went down the right intake and while being converted to sausage it destroyed the engine. The engine caught fire, turbine blades went flying like shrapnel, electrical and hydraulic lines were cut, and the Eagle started slowly rolling out of control to the right. After riding through a complete roll, the crew was able to safely eject partly because the pilot was able to convert airspeed to altitude.
While MOAs are clearly marked on sectionals, the thin gray lines marking MTRs can be somewhat misleading. The gray lines supposedly indicate the centerline of the route, but aircraft can be anywhere within the corridor that the line helps define. Muddying the waters, the charts don't show the multiple alternate entry and exit points and corridors that may accompany a route, nor do they indicate that the centerline is frequently well away from the center of the route corridor. For instance, VR100 in New Mexico shows one route segment to be five nautical miles right and three nm left of the centerline. Another segment of the same route is listed as two nm right and 28 nm left. Most routes, however, tend to be between three and five nm on either side of the centerline. Like MOAs, they ought to be avoided when they are hot. If you plan to fly in an MTR, the military emphatically urges you to contact a flight service station or the controlling agency to learn if the route will be hot. They'd also like you to know the route's location and what air bases are in your area so you'll know where to look and what aircraft to look for.
Unfortunately some GA pilots, like Al Carpenter, are caught between a rock and a hard place. His airfield lies within five nautical miles of the centerlines for five busy MTRs. Two of those centerlines are a mile or less away from his airfield. "If I didn't fly when it was hot," complains this former Navy fighter pilot and multiyear guest at the Hanoi Hilton, "I would never fly!" Even though Carpenter has had jets at pattern altitude, he doesn't consider them to be a major problem. Just "keep your head up and on a swivel" and assume all routes are always hot. After all, he says, "You are never relieved of your responsibility to see and avoid."
Right or wrong, it appears many military pilots are convinced that a large segment of the GA population is reckless when it comes to flying in hot, special-use airspace. While studies and anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise, it's plain from my 20 minutes over Farmsville (with two GA aircraft going through the MOA) that there's reason for their belief. While wrapping up this story, I sent out an e-mail to some of my flying buddies asking about their experiences. Leo Callahan, a former Air Force pilot who now flies GA, wrote back saying, "If the MOA is active, I don't fly there. If I cannot contact the controlling agency, I don't fly there. I spent many hours flying in MOAs during my Air Force career and I have no intentions of playing with F-15s, A-10s, or any other high-performance machines. It could ruin everyone's day."
Whether through mistake, need, or defiance, GA pilots will continue to fly in hot special-use airspace, a fact that doesn't sit well with the military. In some instances, these flights are essentially unavoidable. For the vast majority of us, they're not. When this airspace is hot, it's best that GA pilots avoid it for the simple reason that we'd all like to live to fly another day. As CFI Becky Luther says, "there are no rules to stop them, only common sense."
Tim Wright is a pilot and freelance writer and photographer living in Richmond.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 53
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick.......Head a story de oder day.Dem boys tell me your a real puckin goose.Always lookin por da sunny sky and easy option!spare me your sorrow and ply south..real far wid little puel!!CU.
Last edited by Parc-Ratstej; 19th Dec 2007 at 20:57.
Thread Starter
Howabout, the issue with the MOA (Military Operation Area) is what is happening in it at the time. I have friends in the USA who will fly VFR in an MOA if it has been activated, say, for helicopter winch practice. However if it had been activated for fighter training, they would not.
We presently have our fighters screaming through Class G airspace at low levels. Mostly they are not following pre-organised routes (as per the USA) and the safety is obtained from the fact that the probability of hitting one in most parts of Australia is extremely small.
In the UK, due to its limited airspace, the fighter jocks share the Class G airspace with GA. There has been an occasional midair – but at very low levels, mostly with helicopters.
In the USA their MOAs and restricted areas are generally in the “triangles” that are created between air routes, and most are out over Arizona or Nevada where the traffic density is lower and therefore the number of diversions is less.
To everyone with ideas in relation to Williamtown, the answer is very simple. If the rules were updated to those of other modern aviation countries, there would rarely be any holding in the lane. More importantly, VFR aircraft would fly over the top with a clearance in Class C airspace, or through Class E airspace without a clearance as they do in North America.
I once met an American couple who were flying around the world. They got to the Williamtown control zone at 5,500 feet and requested a clearance across the top. They said it was like Oliver asking for more. The controller was horrified that they would be so audacious and told them to immediately descend to 500 feet – which put them in the salt laden air – and to fly along the beach via the lane. They monitored the approach and tower frequencies and said that the only traffic operating was a commuter aircraft.
I say again, once we can get the military people in Canberra to go ahead with the change that they have said they will do, the whole system will work extremely safely but without the extra risk and costs of unnecessary holding.
We presently have our fighters screaming through Class G airspace at low levels. Mostly they are not following pre-organised routes (as per the USA) and the safety is obtained from the fact that the probability of hitting one in most parts of Australia is extremely small.
In the UK, due to its limited airspace, the fighter jocks share the Class G airspace with GA. There has been an occasional midair – but at very low levels, mostly with helicopters.
In the USA their MOAs and restricted areas are generally in the “triangles” that are created between air routes, and most are out over Arizona or Nevada where the traffic density is lower and therefore the number of diversions is less.
To everyone with ideas in relation to Williamtown, the answer is very simple. If the rules were updated to those of other modern aviation countries, there would rarely be any holding in the lane. More importantly, VFR aircraft would fly over the top with a clearance in Class C airspace, or through Class E airspace without a clearance as they do in North America.
I once met an American couple who were flying around the world. They got to the Williamtown control zone at 5,500 feet and requested a clearance across the top. They said it was like Oliver asking for more. The controller was horrified that they would be so audacious and told them to immediately descend to 500 feet – which put them in the salt laden air – and to fly along the beach via the lane. They monitored the approach and tower frequencies and said that the only traffic operating was a commuter aircraft.
I say again, once we can get the military people in Canberra to go ahead with the change that they have said they will do, the whole system will work extremely safely but without the extra risk and costs of unnecessary holding.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We presently have our fighters screaming through Class G airspace at low levels. Mostly they are not following pre-organised routes (as per the USA) and the safety is obtained from the fact that the probability of hitting one in most parts of Australia is extremely small.
NFR.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Ask the US Military about the value of the "set-routes" they fly low level................
no - on second thoughts, I can't be bother anymore..............
Ask the US Military about the value of the "set-routes" they fly low level................
no - on second thoughts, I can't be bother anymore..............
In the USA their MOAs and restricted areas are generally in the “triangles” that are created between air routes, and most are out over Arizona or Nevada where the traffic density is lower and therefore the number of diversions is less.
MOA's ARE MORE DANGEROUS THAN RESTRICTED AIRSPACE - FACT
We also had commuter airlines and lighties flying around our USAF base traffic zone (I think the zone was only 5 miles but I cant remember exactly) and were often given traffic on them (we were on UHF, they were on a different VHF) but in the haze we would often pass through 'ships in the night' with no visual and no radar paint. The risk was increased when you were dragging a 4 ship formation through the area. So the airspace can be less restrictive, but it is impossibe to deny that the RISK DOES NOT INCREASE
Mostly they are not following pre-organised routes (as per the USA) and the safety is obtained from the fact that the probability of hitting one in most parts of Australia is extremely small.
If the rules were updated to those of other modern aviation countries, there would rarely be any holding in the lane.
The rules could be changed to allow Dick to do what he wants; but it will increase the risk and it will impact on military operations (they would probably carry more fuel reserves as an example), so whilst anything is possible as always it would be a balance.
You mentioned traffic density yourself Dick; in the US they HAVE to share in a lot of circumstances; we can still afford to be more restrictive and therefore be SAFER and continue to provide the most effective training opportunities for RAAF crews; at the cost of very SMALL inconvenience to GA.
One possible reason for a reluctance to provide a coastal lane (i.e no clearance required) would be when the RAAF wishes to close the lane; you would be running the risk that you would have aircraft transiting the (de-activated) lane without any idea it has been closed - this again would be an increase in Risk. I am not saying this is enough reason not to have a lane; but it is a factor in the risk/reward decision.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: perth
Age: 74
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK equivalent of our 'restricted airspace' is a 'MATZ', the difference is, you could ask the RAF controller for a 'MATZ Penetration', and he would either give you an altitude and vector, or "own navigation", (which meant there was no activity in the MATZ). In decades I was only refused a MATZ penetration a handful of times.
Thread Starter
Ftrplt, I’ll say it again to make it really clear. When I have been held at Nobbys, the holding has not been because of military operations. I have been held at Nobbys because of IFR airline operations in or out of Williamtown Airport.
If the controller bothered to give the airline a clearance which required an altitude of 1,000 feet by the coast, there would be no need for the holding. Airline pilots have told me that this type of clearance would not be restrictive as they are well over 1,000 feet by the coast, or have turned onto their track before then.
I’m not sure how we can “afford to be more restrictive” in Australia than the USA. You don’t appear to understand that this is a globalised world and we have a free trade agreement with the USA. That means that any additional costs put onto Australian businesses makes us uncompetitive.
I have found in talking to many military people that most appear to have no grasp of how a business actually operates, and how important it is to reduce waste and keep overheads down. I often wonder how these military people run their own home finances. Maybe they think that a business is different.
You appear to be showing a classic resistance to change – i.e. the way we have done it since the 1950s should be the way we keep it, even if it is more costly than what happens in our major competitor countries.
If the controller bothered to give the airline a clearance which required an altitude of 1,000 feet by the coast, there would be no need for the holding. Airline pilots have told me that this type of clearance would not be restrictive as they are well over 1,000 feet by the coast, or have turned onto their track before then.
I’m not sure how we can “afford to be more restrictive” in Australia than the USA. You don’t appear to understand that this is a globalised world and we have a free trade agreement with the USA. That means that any additional costs put onto Australian businesses makes us uncompetitive.
I have found in talking to many military people that most appear to have no grasp of how a business actually operates, and how important it is to reduce waste and keep overheads down. I often wonder how these military people run their own home finances. Maybe they think that a business is different.
You appear to be showing a classic resistance to change – i.e. the way we have done it since the 1950s should be the way we keep it, even if it is more costly than what happens in our major competitor countries.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, I flew RPT twins into Willy for quite some years, if quite some years ago, and I have to say the RAAF controllers there were sweetness and light compared with others I could mention, (but let’s not go there today), doing a very good job in getting us in in between their F18s.
Like others who’ve responded before me, I’m more than a little bemused by some of your comments - like
I’ve added the boldface because there isn’t a smiley that I’m aware of that denotes incredulity.
You also show a surprising lack of knowledge of the system you were one (twice?) in charge of when you make statements like
Designated Low Jet Routes have been in place in Australia for well over 30 years, and the RAAF is – or certainly was – very careful to follow them. LJRs give civilian pilots (who read their Notams) notice of where the fast jets will be, but probably more importantly, they have been carefully checked to ensure that they remain clear of noise-sensitive areas and obstructions, like power lines.
I notice in an earlier reply you tried putting on your schoolmaster’s cap in gently chiding one respondent for not understanding risk assessment, going on to use ETOPS operations as an example that the respondent, as a professional pilot, was doing “without understanding” that he was taking risks that had been deemed aceptable.
Bemused is the word that comes to mind – yet again – when I see someone with your background comparing ETOPS with (what you see as) the ‘acceptable’ risk of allowing a light aircraft to transit a takeoff splay – because (as you see it), the chances of a twin suffering an engine failure and being at exactly the same level at exactly the same time as what I'll call 'the intruder' are so low that it should be acceptable for you to proceed into the area unimpeded. Simply put, that just ain’t the way Aviation is conducted – and rightly so.
Call it Sod’s Law, call it Dr James Reason’s Swiss Cheese model – call it what you like - but these procedures have been put in place so that crews – both civilian and military – don’t have to rely on that proverbial ‘last slice of cheese’ as the ONLY factor between them and disaster. What you’re suggesting is basically that - removing all safety constraints and relying on ‘the last slice of cheese’ – that the two aircraft will not be in exactly the same piece of airspace at exactly the same time. Sod’s Law says that one day they will – and you never know, it might just be you who is in one of the conflicting aircraft that day.
Like others who’ve responded before me, I’m more than a little bemused by some of your comments - like
In the UK, due to its limited airspace, the fighter jocks share the Class G airspace with GA. There has been an occasional midair – but at very low levels, mostly with helicopters.
You also show a surprising lack of knowledge of the system you were one (twice?) in charge of when you make statements like
We presently have our fighters screaming through Class G airspace at low levels. Mostly they are not following pre-organised routes (as per the USA) and the safety is obtained from the fact that the probability of hitting one in most parts of Australia is extremely small.
I notice in an earlier reply you tried putting on your schoolmaster’s cap in gently chiding one respondent for not understanding risk assessment, going on to use ETOPS operations as an example that the respondent, as a professional pilot, was doing “without understanding” that he was taking risks that had been deemed aceptable.
Bemused is the word that comes to mind – yet again – when I see someone with your background comparing ETOPS with (what you see as) the ‘acceptable’ risk of allowing a light aircraft to transit a takeoff splay – because (as you see it), the chances of a twin suffering an engine failure and being at exactly the same level at exactly the same time as what I'll call 'the intruder' are so low that it should be acceptable for you to proceed into the area unimpeded. Simply put, that just ain’t the way Aviation is conducted – and rightly so.
Call it Sod’s Law, call it Dr James Reason’s Swiss Cheese model – call it what you like - but these procedures have been put in place so that crews – both civilian and military – don’t have to rely on that proverbial ‘last slice of cheese’ as the ONLY factor between them and disaster. What you’re suggesting is basically that - removing all safety constraints and relying on ‘the last slice of cheese’ – that the two aircraft will not be in exactly the same piece of airspace at exactly the same time. Sod’s Law says that one day they will – and you never know, it might just be you who is in one of the conflicting aircraft that day.
I'm not sure how familiar everyone here is with Williamtown (and i skipped page 2
), but the way it works for lighties transiting is fairly simple.
You have 2 options for transiting the airspace.
1) The Inland Lane - Follows a railway line through the valley up through Dungog and Gloucester. Forced down below the tops of the mountains (no fun on turbulent days, let me assure you), but it is Class G - Can fly through at any time.
2) Willy Coastal - Fly up or down the coast at 500'. Requires a clearance, which is not always available immediately. Heading North, it starts at Nobby's head (where that tanker got beached recently), or heading South it starts, from memory, at Broughton Island (Just off the coast of Nelson Bay, where the Grey Nurses breed).
I have been heading coastal southbound before and had to hold halfway down the lane, before crossing the approach path for RWY 30, due approaching Jet* Airbus. I can tell you, I was much happier holding there, as I saw how bloody close I would have been to the Airbus if I had been let through without delay.
I have had to hold at Nobby's for many reasons, including Military traffic, and inbound/outbound airlines. Each time the reason has been valid enough for me, and I accepted it because I CHOSE to take the more scenic and pleasant route, knowing before I took off that there was always the possibility of having to hold or being completely refused clearance due to it being MILITARY airspace, it's the chance you take, and worst case you can always fly up the inland lane.
If you read the ERSA, it is (or at least was) a requirement for VFR aircraft to plan either inland or coastal lanes of transit. You can ask for another clearance, but you probably won't get it.
- Side note: I have often been given a clearance to track overhead WLM from present position at altitudes 2500' and sometimes lower, so it does get given.
The only aircraft on the frequencies they monitored was a commuter aircraft. It should be pointed out that Willy is also the main fast jet training base in Australia. 76 Sqn (Adv. Hawk Training) and 2OCU (Hornet Conversion) are both based out of there, as well as 3 separate fighter squadrons. These all do training all the time, within Willy airspace (which is also classed as RESTRICTED airspace) within large block levels (often SFC to 30000 or something similarly large). This does include no radio, and I'm fairly sure that there are Military Only frequencies that are commonly used, since I rarely hear any Panther 22's or anything like that, except when they're being directed on approach like any other aircraft or being cleared through the 'gates'
Some final food for thought: How many times have you gone for Harbour Bridge Orbits and had to hold?
Yarr!
), but the way it works for lighties transiting is fairly simple.You have 2 options for transiting the airspace.
1) The Inland Lane - Follows a railway line through the valley up through Dungog and Gloucester. Forced down below the tops of the mountains (no fun on turbulent days, let me assure you), but it is Class G - Can fly through at any time.
2) Willy Coastal - Fly up or down the coast at 500'. Requires a clearance, which is not always available immediately. Heading North, it starts at Nobby's head (where that tanker got beached recently), or heading South it starts, from memory, at Broughton Island (Just off the coast of Nelson Bay, where the Grey Nurses breed).
I have been heading coastal southbound before and had to hold halfway down the lane, before crossing the approach path for RWY 30, due approaching Jet* Airbus. I can tell you, I was much happier holding there, as I saw how bloody close I would have been to the Airbus if I had been let through without delay.
I have had to hold at Nobby's for many reasons, including Military traffic, and inbound/outbound airlines. Each time the reason has been valid enough for me, and I accepted it because I CHOSE to take the more scenic and pleasant route, knowing before I took off that there was always the possibility of having to hold or being completely refused clearance due to it being MILITARY airspace, it's the chance you take, and worst case you can always fly up the inland lane.
I once met an American couple who were flying around the world. They got to the Williamtown control zone at 5,500 feet and requested a clearance across the top. They said it was like Oliver asking for more. The controller was horrified that they would be so audacious and told them to immediately descend to 500 feet – which put them in the salt laden air – and to fly along the beach via the lane. They monitored the approach and tower frequencies and said that the only traffic operating was a commuter aircraft.
- Side note: I have often been given a clearance to track overhead WLM from present position at altitudes 2500' and sometimes lower, so it does get given.
The only aircraft on the frequencies they monitored was a commuter aircraft. It should be pointed out that Willy is also the main fast jet training base in Australia. 76 Sqn (Adv. Hawk Training) and 2OCU (Hornet Conversion) are both based out of there, as well as 3 separate fighter squadrons. These all do training all the time, within Willy airspace (which is also classed as RESTRICTED airspace) within large block levels (often SFC to 30000 or something similarly large). This does include no radio, and I'm fairly sure that there are Military Only frequencies that are commonly used, since I rarely hear any Panther 22's or anything like that, except when they're being directed on approach like any other aircraft or being cleared through the 'gates'
Some final food for thought: How many times have you gone for Harbour Bridge Orbits and had to hold?
Yarr!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: earth
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, maybe you have arrived over Nobbies at a time when the RAAF have their aircraft arriving back from exercises ( this can mean anywhere from 2 to 14 aircraft within a 20 minute period). At this time most aircraft are held, whether VFR, IFR, on the ground or in the air, you would understand why when standing on the ground at YWLM watching formations of F18's joining overhead the field.
I cannot confirm, but my understanding is that YWLM is also a training ground for military Air Traffic Controllers, as well for many foreign military ATC personnal (this I cannot confirm but of general understanding at YWLM).
Lastly, from my experience at Willy operating in and out on a daily basis for 7 years, VFR aircraft are frequently not held when transiting north and south along the coast at 500ft, instead ATC will issue us with a take off clearance from RWY 12 with a requirement to stay 1 mile west of the coast line on departure.
Yes Dick they are not perfect and could take some notes from their civil counterparts at YSSY airport, but at the end of the day they run a different operation with different rules and procedures. You must also remember they are now dealing with an enormous growth rate of civil traffic at YWLM which will continue into next year (which I hear they are not happy about).
The big one Dick. It is their airport and their airspace, I personnally find them very accommodating to civil private, freight, charter and RPT operations.
BS.
I cannot confirm, but my understanding is that YWLM is also a training ground for military Air Traffic Controllers, as well for many foreign military ATC personnal (this I cannot confirm but of general understanding at YWLM).
Lastly, from my experience at Willy operating in and out on a daily basis for 7 years, VFR aircraft are frequently not held when transiting north and south along the coast at 500ft, instead ATC will issue us with a take off clearance from RWY 12 with a requirement to stay 1 mile west of the coast line on departure.
Yes Dick they are not perfect and could take some notes from their civil counterparts at YSSY airport, but at the end of the day they run a different operation with different rules and procedures. You must also remember they are now dealing with an enormous growth rate of civil traffic at YWLM which will continue into next year (which I hear they are not happy about).
The big one Dick. It is their airport and their airspace, I personnally find them very accommodating to civil private, freight, charter and RPT operations.
BS.
Thread Starter
Very interesting – especially that so many of the most recent posts on this thread are all about keeping our 1950s procedures at Williamtown. I suggest everyone looks back a the post of mjbow2 of 19 December regarding the Amarillo Class C airspace and its dimensions. British MATZ (Military Air Traffic Zone) – some with up to 50 Tornado fighters – have even smaller dimensions.
I am not suggesting that we have the British system, I’m suggesting we use the US NAS system of MOAs – especially for places like Oakey. There you have an enormous restricted area that is nearly 50 miles in diameter to the surface for (I understand) helicopter training. That would be an ideal place for an MOA.
If the Williamtown controllers have to ensure 1,000 feet of vertical separation between IFR and VFR, it shows that the rules are out of date. For many years Australia has accepted the ICAO – I say again, ICAO – cruising level table which gives 500 feet of separation between IFR and VFR. If that is approved by ICAO, why would we need 1,000 feet when aircraft are under ATC control and have no doubt additionally been given traffic on each other?
Cap’n Arrr, I’m told that the safest place to transit an airport that has approach and departure traffic is above 5,000 feet. As I’ve mentioned, it is almost impossible to get a clearance above 5,000 feet over Williamtown – even when the airspace is only activated for civilian traffic.
As mentioned by mjbow2, the Class C airspace in the United States only goes to 5,000 feet AGL, so most VFR aircraft would transit across the top in Class E airspace. Busy airports such as Los Angeles have VFR lanes which cross the runway complex at altitude – the safest place for VFR aircraft to be.
Pass-A-Frozo, the procedure I am talking about has no cost – it actually saves money by reducing unnecessary holding. If an airline aircraft will be at 1,500 feet by the coast on its normal departure, then there is no additional cost to be given this as a requirement in the clearance.
Wiley, we do have fighter jets flying in Class G airspace and not following pre-organised routes. I’ve even seen an F/A-18 in the Class G airspace 500 feet off the coast in Sydney with no mention of this on the NOTAMS.
Wiley, Sod’s Law and the James Reason model are completely different. The James Reason model uses probability to maximise safety – i.e. what is the mathematical probability of all the holes lining up?
Regarding the example I have given in relation to an engine failure on take off at Williamtown, it is not the
As both aircraft are under air traffic control and have been given traffic on each other, in the case of an engine failure wouldn’t they look out and avoid each other? It is called “alerted see and avoid.” I understand that at major airports when 747s have been given a visual approach and instructed to sight and follow another aircraft, that is what they do. They look out (using “alerted see and avoid”) and do not run into the other aeroplane.
Wiley, you seem to be coming up with every justification to keep the status quo – never move forward. Are you military trained or ex-military?
Ozbiggles, your statement
gives me the hint that either the military people who have fibbed to me for over a decade (saying how they are going to make important changes but never do) will either be making the changes or taking some action in relation to my statement. I’m happy either way. If I make a promise to someone and have to let them down, I contact them and explain the reason. I don’t just act as if nothing has happened. If you are suggesting that there could be some type of legal action, I will accept that. Then we will all be able to hear why promises have been made and then broken. It will be of great public interest.
I am not suggesting that we have the British system, I’m suggesting we use the US NAS system of MOAs – especially for places like Oakey. There you have an enormous restricted area that is nearly 50 miles in diameter to the surface for (I understand) helicopter training. That would be an ideal place for an MOA.
If the Williamtown controllers have to ensure 1,000 feet of vertical separation between IFR and VFR, it shows that the rules are out of date. For many years Australia has accepted the ICAO – I say again, ICAO – cruising level table which gives 500 feet of separation between IFR and VFR. If that is approved by ICAO, why would we need 1,000 feet when aircraft are under ATC control and have no doubt additionally been given traffic on each other?
Cap’n Arrr, I’m told that the safest place to transit an airport that has approach and departure traffic is above 5,000 feet. As I’ve mentioned, it is almost impossible to get a clearance above 5,000 feet over Williamtown – even when the airspace is only activated for civilian traffic.
As mentioned by mjbow2, the Class C airspace in the United States only goes to 5,000 feet AGL, so most VFR aircraft would transit across the top in Class E airspace. Busy airports such as Los Angeles have VFR lanes which cross the runway complex at altitude – the safest place for VFR aircraft to be.
Pass-A-Frozo, the procedure I am talking about has no cost – it actually saves money by reducing unnecessary holding. If an airline aircraft will be at 1,500 feet by the coast on its normal departure, then there is no additional cost to be given this as a requirement in the clearance.
Wiley, we do have fighter jets flying in Class G airspace and not following pre-organised routes. I’ve even seen an F/A-18 in the Class G airspace 500 feet off the coast in Sydney with no mention of this on the NOTAMS.
Wiley, Sod’s Law and the James Reason model are completely different. The James Reason model uses probability to maximise safety – i.e. what is the mathematical probability of all the holes lining up?
Regarding the example I have given in relation to an engine failure on take off at Williamtown, it is not the
‘last slice of cheese’ as the ONLY factor between them and disaster
Wiley, you seem to be coming up with every justification to keep the status quo – never move forward. Are you military trained or ex-military?
Ozbiggles, your statement
Standby for further
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australian vertical separation standards are ICAO.
The ICAO cruising levels are not separation standards but are a strategic tool to reduce conflictions especially in Class G.
A requirement for an IFR departure to reach 1500' by the coast would (as BOB55 advised) require the VFR aircraft to be 1nm over water (at 500').
The ICAO cruising levels are not separation standards but are a strategic tool to reduce conflictions especially in Class G.
A requirement for an IFR departure to reach 1500' by the coast would (as BOB55 advised) require the VFR aircraft to be 1nm over water (at 500').
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in the case of an engine failure wouldn’t they look out and avoid each other?
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith, apropos Mr Wiley’s perhaps overly emotive comment, could I suggest you ask one of your doubtlessly many contacts within the aviation fraternity to organise an observation ride for you in a simulator? Sit and observe a crew handling an engine failure at V1+1 and see how much time (and aircraft performance) they have to “look out and avoid each other”, especially around the 500’ mark. It’s no different – (and maybe even more busy for a single pilot) - for the crew of a light twin in the same situation.
Surprises can come from very unexpected areas when flying close to the ground. Some years ago, I found myself in a situation not unlike the one Mr Smith complained about in starting this thread. I was flying a Bell 205 - (for all intents and purposes, just a bigger version of the 206 Mr Smith flew around the world in) – between Nowra and Williamtown on a sunny Summer Sunday afternoon, and was held by Sydney ATC at Cronulla because they were using 16 at Mascot.
After ten minutes orbiting, with no apparent end of the hold in sight, I told the controller we didn’t have fuel to hold much longer. He asked me if I was willing to accept a non-standard (and possibly not exactly within the rules) clearance – “not above 100 feet until clear of the 16 flight path”. We carefully considered this non standard clearance – for about a nanosecond. ATC was actually giving three 20-something red-blooded Australian males permission to beetle along North Cronulla beach, packed with babes in all states of undress, not above100 feet?
We took it – and as we approached the northern end of the beach, (fortuitously if not surprisingly), every one of us paying great attention to our “lookout”, a bloke launched himself in a hang glider from a dune immediately in front of us. One minute clear skies and a clear flight path, and a second later, the underside plan form of a hang glider, (looking very much like Batman’s searchlight being shone on the clouds), filling my windscreen.
I don’t know who got the bigger fright – I broke right, out to sea and almost certainly blew my altitude restriction - (I wasn’t looking at my altimeter!) - and I’m not sure what the poor bastard in the hang glider did. We missed – literally by a whisker – and I sincerely hope my rotor wash didn’t leave him in too bad a state to regain some semblance of control.
Not exactly the same, I know, but I think this incident might show the fallacy of Mr Smith’s comment
. Sometimes two aircraft do find themselves in the same piece of sky at exactly the same time, and if the crew of one of those aircraft is dealing with the first minute or two of an engine failure procedure, they will definitely not be in a position to “look out and avoid each other”.
Surprises can come from very unexpected areas when flying close to the ground. Some years ago, I found myself in a situation not unlike the one Mr Smith complained about in starting this thread. I was flying a Bell 205 - (for all intents and purposes, just a bigger version of the 206 Mr Smith flew around the world in) – between Nowra and Williamtown on a sunny Summer Sunday afternoon, and was held by Sydney ATC at Cronulla because they were using 16 at Mascot.
After ten minutes orbiting, with no apparent end of the hold in sight, I told the controller we didn’t have fuel to hold much longer. He asked me if I was willing to accept a non-standard (and possibly not exactly within the rules) clearance – “not above 100 feet until clear of the 16 flight path”. We carefully considered this non standard clearance – for about a nanosecond. ATC was actually giving three 20-something red-blooded Australian males permission to beetle along North Cronulla beach, packed with babes in all states of undress, not above100 feet?
We took it – and as we approached the northern end of the beach, (fortuitously if not surprisingly), every one of us paying great attention to our “lookout”, a bloke launched himself in a hang glider from a dune immediately in front of us. One minute clear skies and a clear flight path, and a second later, the underside plan form of a hang glider, (looking very much like Batman’s searchlight being shone on the clouds), filling my windscreen.
I don’t know who got the bigger fright – I broke right, out to sea and almost certainly blew my altitude restriction - (I wasn’t looking at my altimeter!) - and I’m not sure what the poor bastard in the hang glider did. We missed – literally by a whisker – and I sincerely hope my rotor wash didn’t leave him in too bad a state to regain some semblance of control.
Not exactly the same, I know, but I think this incident might show the fallacy of Mr Smith’s comment
…what are the odds of an IFR aircraft having an engine failure on take off from 12 and crossing the coast at 500 feet at exactly the same time that a VFR aircraft in the lane is at the same place?
Mr Smith
I dont need to resort to legal action if I disagree with someone. Its a waste of court time and just makes laywers richer.
Even if someone resorts to calling people callous in their regard for other peoples lives and incompetent in their private lives.
I'm sure there are people out there who would chose to waste court time if they had been slandered in this way.
The way I remember people of our defence force is what they do when people need them, ie PNG, Timor, Solomon, Far NQ in cyclone relief, Indonesia, Bali and the job they do in support of government policy.
You go ahead with your big brush on what defence people are to you because they delay you 2mins.
No one cares what I say.....but they are watching what you say with great interest.
I dont need to resort to legal action if I disagree with someone. Its a waste of court time and just makes laywers richer.
Even if someone resorts to calling people callous in their regard for other peoples lives and incompetent in their private lives.
I'm sure there are people out there who would chose to waste court time if they had been slandered in this way.
The way I remember people of our defence force is what they do when people need them, ie PNG, Timor, Solomon, Far NQ in cyclone relief, Indonesia, Bali and the job they do in support of government policy.
You go ahead with your big brush on what defence people are to you because they delay you 2mins.
No one cares what I say.....but they are watching what you say with great interest.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think the primary purpose of military airspace is to allow for training in warlike scenarios. As a consequence, I expect commercial aircraft to be accommodated as much as practical, but their commercial, normal needs to be secondary to the primary needs of the military. Should these priorities ever be reversed, then I would expect military training and capabilities to be compromised.