25 years of holding at Williamtown
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Down Under
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ozbiggles say ...
Bless our military forces. I am an ex conscript. I agree with your statement. I love our military. However the military is not beyond reproach. One example. Remember, Captain Shane Della-Vedova who stole 10 rocket launchers in 2002 and tried to sell them at $12,000 a piece (SMH December 20th)? He was complicit with Dean Steven Taylor, an army corporal? Thank goodness Captain & Corporal weren't Muslims or had names like Haneef or Muhammed - but I digress. What about those soldiers who are in charged of the non flying Seasprites with $1.4b in cost over-runs? Or perhaps the soldiers who managed to lose $2.1bn in the frigate upgrade (see ANAO reports via Google). As a tax payer I am annoyed no one has been made accountable. This would be a great thread if Angus Houston or any of his senior people contribute. But they won't. So the politics of blind faith, secrecy, suppositions etc cuts in.
I can't read anywhere that Dick was dissing our men in uniform. On many Anzac Days over many years, I have observed him with a flag and placard cheering our parading troops past and present. U cld be over-reacting there perhaps?
It'd make lovely TV if I could get Lieut Caffey to yell, "Col Jessop, did you order a Code Red?" re holding at YSRI, Willy, etc etc. Thanks for reading and let's keep this thread positive and constructive.
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.
I can't read anywhere that Dick was dissing our men in uniform. On many Anzac Days over many years, I have observed him with a flag and placard cheering our parading troops past and present. U cld be over-reacting there perhaps?
It'd make lovely TV if I could get Lieut Caffey to yell, "Col Jessop, did you order a Code Red?" re holding at YSRI, Willy, etc etc. Thanks for reading and let's keep this thread positive and constructive.
Grumpy
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 35-21 South 149-06 East
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For Gxxds sake DICK - just go away.
You have been banging your gums togther for at least 30 years about what you believe to be the absolute incomptence of the commonwealth bureaucrats who manage the airspace system - predicting either disaster or how we can reduce the costs of flying by $10 per hour by adopting your approach.
Give me a break - the system works incredible well. And there are a lot of people in CAS, in AsA and also in the private sector who are working to keep it that way.
We do not have mid-air collisons - we do not have many CFIT accidents - in fact we have a very safe system as the stats continually show. When we have significant accidents it invariably involves a failure of judgement on the part of the pilot or the company - not the ATC system or the regulations. First fly the aeroplane Dick.
We have a system that everyone involved is trying to make safer.
Look Dick - like me you are almost the old boring person - approaching 70 - just give it a break and retire.
Cheers
Grumpy
You have been banging your gums togther for at least 30 years about what you believe to be the absolute incomptence of the commonwealth bureaucrats who manage the airspace system - predicting either disaster or how we can reduce the costs of flying by $10 per hour by adopting your approach.
Give me a break - the system works incredible well. And there are a lot of people in CAS, in AsA and also in the private sector who are working to keep it that way.
We do not have mid-air collisons - we do not have many CFIT accidents - in fact we have a very safe system as the stats continually show. When we have significant accidents it invariably involves a failure of judgement on the part of the pilot or the company - not the ATC system or the regulations. First fly the aeroplane Dick.
We have a system that everyone involved is trying to make safer.
Look Dick - like me you are almost the old boring person - approaching 70 - just give it a break and retire.
Cheers
Grumpy
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.
I am curious to know whether you have experienced an engine failure before?
I have - 4 times; one of which catastrophic at <400ft is a single and I can assure you that the last fecking thing on my mind was looking out for other traffic.
Thread Starter
Ozbiggles, I’m clearly not criticising “defence people” who represent us overseas. I’m clearly referring to the ones who sit in an office in Canberra. From my first post:
Ozbiggles, you say:
I suggest they stick to their promises otherwise they will hear a lot more from me next year.
I believe it is because of an almost complete lack of leadership in the hierarchy of ATC in the Air Force in Canberra. In my experience, our military controllers are as good as any in the world. It is just that they are totally let down by people who move up into management positions
Imagine if we ever had a war – with the present people in senior positions in the Air Force seemingly unable to make any decision which requires lateral thinking and real leadership.
they are watching what you say with great interest.
Thread Starter
Atlas Shrugged, yes, I have experienced an engine failure. It was in my Citation when flying single pilot at Flight Levels over Orange, with no other people on board. The cockpit was also filled with smoke. I declared an emergency and landed at Bathurst, making the required announcements and keeping my eyes open to see and avoid other aircraft.
If you can’t look out after an engine failure, what do airline aircraft do when flying OCTA and experiencing an engine failure?
If you can’t look out after an engine failure, what do airline aircraft do when flying OCTA and experiencing an engine failure?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DickBashing
SuperCecil,
You seems to be equally as guilty as everyone else with your gutless, mindless attacks on people!
For the record, I understand where dick is coming from but I also understand why Willy does what it does: SAFETY! The best outcome anyone can seek is a compromise; and NOT a compromise on SAFETY! Dick, of all people, should underatnd this?
Enrooted, Gutless shrugged, you blokes nothing to do besides witless, vitriolic replies? Time for you blokes to start making grammar and spelling corrections so you can feel superior. Start 4? That you with another name enRooted? Maybe you should stick to your kiddies books.
For the record, I understand where dick is coming from but I also understand why Willy does what it does: SAFETY! The best outcome anyone can seek is a compromise; and NOT a compromise on SAFETY! Dick, of all people, should underatnd this?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Here
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
the engine failure scenario you described is a world away from the engine out contingency being mooted in this thread. An engine loss and descent from flight levels from overhead a suitable airport (albiet with smoke) is not in the same league as losing a donk shortly after T/O in your typical GA twin. Marginal excess performance, high weight (take-off, remember), struggling to maintain blue line and get the ship in order, AND not drop in on the dunes or water will eat up most of the situational awareness of any pilot...doesn't leave a lot remaining for the lookout of someone else crossing your path on upwind who is too impatient to hold for a couple of minutes whilst a commercial operator gets airborne.
I'm not diminishing your experience in your Citation - well done for getting it down - but it is not the same as the scenario in this thread. Any attempt to represent it as such suggests that perhaps you are disingenuous or being naive in this instance.
I've had serious engine malfunctions in both scenarios (heavy weight upwind and at flight levels) and they are different beasts entirely.
410's post on 21/12 (first paragraph) hits the nail squarely on the head.
the engine failure scenario you described is a world away from the engine out contingency being mooted in this thread. An engine loss and descent from flight levels from overhead a suitable airport (albiet with smoke) is not in the same league as losing a donk shortly after T/O in your typical GA twin. Marginal excess performance, high weight (take-off, remember), struggling to maintain blue line and get the ship in order, AND not drop in on the dunes or water will eat up most of the situational awareness of any pilot...doesn't leave a lot remaining for the lookout of someone else crossing your path on upwind who is too impatient to hold for a couple of minutes whilst a commercial operator gets airborne.
I'm not diminishing your experience in your Citation - well done for getting it down - but it is not the same as the scenario in this thread. Any attempt to represent it as such suggests that perhaps you are disingenuous or being naive in this instance.
I've had serious engine malfunctions in both scenarios (heavy weight upwind and at flight levels) and they are different beasts entirely.
410's post on 21/12 (first paragraph) hits the nail squarely on the head.
Ozbiggles, I’m clearly not criticising “defence people” who represent us overseas. I’m clearly referring to the ones who sit in an office in Canberra. From my first post:
Quote:
I believe it is because of an almost complete lack of leadership in the hierarchy of ATC in the Air Force in Canberra. In my experience, our military controllers are as good as any in the world. It is just that they are totally let down by people who move up into management positions
Quote:
Imagine if we ever had a war – with the present people in senior positions in the Air Force seemingly unable to make any decision which requires lateral thinking and real leadership.
Ozbiggles, you say:
Quote:
they are watching what you say with great interest.
I suggest they stick to their promises otherwise they will hear a lot more from me next year.
Quote:
I believe it is because of an almost complete lack of leadership in the hierarchy of ATC in the Air Force in Canberra. In my experience, our military controllers are as good as any in the world. It is just that they are totally let down by people who move up into management positions
Quote:
Imagine if we ever had a war – with the present people in senior positions in the Air Force seemingly unable to make any decision which requires lateral thinking and real leadership.
Ozbiggles, you say:
Quote:
they are watching what you say with great interest.
I suggest they stick to their promises otherwise they will hear a lot more from me next year.
Some of the present senior people in the Air Force are more than capable at managing and conducting war and warlike operations; many of them have from Gulf War II and continue to do so in the Middle East. To take your dismay over what is really a piss-ant little issue and to then link it to the capability and professionalism of senior Officers is really quite pathetic.
Your arrogance is astounding to insinuate that when a decision that you wish to be made is not delivered; then they are automatically incompetent.
Have you ever considered that maybe they have made a decision to not change anything? Maybe there are considerations that stop the decision you desire? Maybe the IFR clearance engine out is a show stopper - the fact that some airline pilots think it is OK doesnt mean ****.
It has already been clearly shown that you don't have all the facts; for example you have asked for 500ft separation and have been told that this is not the standard. What else don't you know about the issue???
You can say all you like next year; your understanding of your influence and what is reality are two very different things.
Dick,
Thanks for answering.
Perhaps I could be so bold as to rephrase my initial question, so that we can keep it in the context of this thread:
Have you ever experienced an engine failure, in a single engine or light twin, in the clean configuration, at close to mtow, at or below 500ft, catastrophic or otherwise?
Unfortunatley, those of us that have, and indeed those of us that will or will again, do not have the luxury of time.
Simply put, it is a case of get it the **** down in the least worst place!
Thanks for answering.
Perhaps I could be so bold as to rephrase my initial question, so that we can keep it in the context of this thread:
Have you ever experienced an engine failure, in a single engine or light twin, in the clean configuration, at close to mtow, at or below 500ft, catastrophic or otherwise?
Unfortunatley, those of us that have, and indeed those of us that will or will again, do not have the luxury of time.
Simply put, it is a case of get it the **** down in the least worst place!
Last edited by Atlas Shrugged; 26th Dec 2007 at 21:17.
G'day Bell Flyer
I agree with the first part of your post completly. Defence people are not above the law or justified criticism. In fact I have utter disgust for the case you mentioned and hope that those responsible are very old before they see freedom again. I think if you re read some of Mr Smiths posts you will find a number of instances that could be taken as ill directed wide spread criticism of a large group of defence people. I recall a web site somewhere where the owner of that web site mentions he hopes that PPRUNE will be 'cleaned up', I'm sure that person didn't want to see a whole group of people being called callous in their regard for peoples safety, hopeless in running their private business and inferring that the current CDF was lying to him. This would be the same CDF when as CAF was widely regarded as telling the truth about the 'children overboard' saga despite knowing what the possible consequences where.
Back to the thread.
It has been mentioned that the chances of a mid air are remote. The FACTS from an ATSB report are that Australia currently has a mid air once per year. About the same rate as the UK and USA. Mostly in the Circuit area. You could mount an argument the CCT area of WLM and the coastal lane are close....hence the policy of seperating aircraft in that area of the world.
You can also google the aircraft accident sites, put in collision and have a look at some of the stats there. Who knows how many close calls there are that are 1. reported and 2. Not reported.
Now Mr Smith you did leave out a few quotes that referred to defence people as well in one of your rebuttals. I would like to believe that maybe you have let your emotions about this subject use a paintbrush a few sizes to big, I hope so.
So in the spirit of Christmas I have a deal for you. Every time you get held at Wlm, I will donate $5 to legacy (about half the cost of an orbit).I would have suggested a beer, but I'm still a little cranky for that. To start the ball rolling I will send in $20 immediately. I will even send in the receipt to PPRUNE to verify it!
I agree with the first part of your post completly. Defence people are not above the law or justified criticism. In fact I have utter disgust for the case you mentioned and hope that those responsible are very old before they see freedom again. I think if you re read some of Mr Smiths posts you will find a number of instances that could be taken as ill directed wide spread criticism of a large group of defence people. I recall a web site somewhere where the owner of that web site mentions he hopes that PPRUNE will be 'cleaned up', I'm sure that person didn't want to see a whole group of people being called callous in their regard for peoples safety, hopeless in running their private business and inferring that the current CDF was lying to him. This would be the same CDF when as CAF was widely regarded as telling the truth about the 'children overboard' saga despite knowing what the possible consequences where.
Back to the thread.
It has been mentioned that the chances of a mid air are remote. The FACTS from an ATSB report are that Australia currently has a mid air once per year. About the same rate as the UK and USA. Mostly in the Circuit area. You could mount an argument the CCT area of WLM and the coastal lane are close....hence the policy of seperating aircraft in that area of the world.
You can also google the aircraft accident sites, put in collision and have a look at some of the stats there. Who knows how many close calls there are that are 1. reported and 2. Not reported.
Now Mr Smith you did leave out a few quotes that referred to defence people as well in one of your rebuttals. I would like to believe that maybe you have let your emotions about this subject use a paintbrush a few sizes to big, I hope so.
So in the spirit of Christmas I have a deal for you. Every time you get held at Wlm, I will donate $5 to legacy (about half the cost of an orbit).I would have suggested a beer, but I'm still a little cranky for that. To start the ball rolling I will send in $20 immediately. I will even send in the receipt to PPRUNE to verify it!
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a criticism of the originator of this thread, but an observation: this thread could be used by some psych student to study how a man gets to be a multi squillionaire - be utterly confident that you are right in everything you do, ignore everyting but the 'big picture', including all criticism, and plough on with your master plan regardless.
It would appear to work very well in business (if not always - some businesspeople go broke). I have two friends who were both self-made millionaires before they turned 30, and the common thread seems to be a willingness to take enormous risks (with theirs and other people's money) and an ability to concentrate on 'the big picture' and not worry about all the little things that might go wrong.
It might help explain why airline pilots are so frequently so bad at business - we are trained NOT to take risks and to worry about all the little things and to go to extraordinary lengths to ensure some 'little thing' doesn't leap out of left field and bite us.
Maybe that judge had it right back in the 1960s when he used the term 'sui generis' - (roughly translated as 'like no other') to describe the profession of flying an aeroplane. And maybe that's why we're all wasting our time debating with a very clever self-made millionaire who for all his undoubted skills, does not appear to think along the same lines as most professional aviators.
It would appear to work very well in business (if not always - some businesspeople go broke). I have two friends who were both self-made millionaires before they turned 30, and the common thread seems to be a willingness to take enormous risks (with theirs and other people's money) and an ability to concentrate on 'the big picture' and not worry about all the little things that might go wrong.
It might help explain why airline pilots are so frequently so bad at business - we are trained NOT to take risks and to worry about all the little things and to go to extraordinary lengths to ensure some 'little thing' doesn't leap out of left field and bite us.
Maybe that judge had it right back in the 1960s when he used the term 'sui generis' - (roughly translated as 'like no other') to describe the profession of flying an aeroplane. And maybe that's why we're all wasting our time debating with a very clever self-made millionaire who for all his undoubted skills, does not appear to think along the same lines as most professional aviators.
Folks,
Controlled Airspace and Engine Failures
Could I respectfully suggest that those of you who are actually professional pilots flying multi-engine aircraft bone up on the criteria, on which engine-out performance is based.
"Controlled" (for our purposes here in Australia, D and up) airspace design DOES NOT attempt to provide "controlled airspace" protection for an engine out or any other non-normal situation.
"Controlled airspace" exists for the purpose of separation of aircraft, and to a lesser degree, obstacle clearance ---- in normal flight, but the latter is still the ultimate responsibility of the PIC.
Have a think about it. Given the variety of aircraft types and possible engine out performance (or lack thereof) scenarios, short of controlled airspace to the ground, how would you do it ? You don't, and that's true for ICAO as well.
Equally, for operations where the PIC is expected to take advantage of controlled airspace where it is available (per. Ops. Manual), no PIC is expected to add "remaining in controlled airspace" to his or her lists of tasks in handling any emergency situation, engine out or whatever.
Thus, the fact that something heavy going off 16L/R at YSSY might go straight through the Victor VFR lane, in the event of an engine failure (it has happened --- birdstrike on two engines, B747-200) is accepted as a reasonable statistical risk. The same goes for 16 at YMML, etc. For anybody who thinks it should be otherwise, don't hold your breath, you'll only go blue in the face. It ain't going to change.
Call it what you will, "Risk Management/Cost-Benefit analysis"/ AS-NZ4360:2005/Affordable Safety/the Airspace Act 2007 (take you pick - they are all fundamentally the same) is here to stay, despite a valiant rearguard action by several groups.
The size of Military airspace at Williamtown, Richmond or anywhere else, has nothing to do with keeping civil aircraft in "controlled airspace" in the event of an emergency. Last time I noticed, Richmond zone boundaries were based on two ancient and seldom (if ever, now) used TACAN approaches.
The fundamental of military airspace design policy in Australia has long been "We won WWII, it all belongs to us", and unlike many countries, in Australia civil makes its own arrangements with "What's left", notwithstanding all sorts of various joint airspace/user agreements.
Tootle pip!!
Controlled Airspace and Engine Failures
Could I respectfully suggest that those of you who are actually professional pilots flying multi-engine aircraft bone up on the criteria, on which engine-out performance is based.
"Controlled" (for our purposes here in Australia, D and up) airspace design DOES NOT attempt to provide "controlled airspace" protection for an engine out or any other non-normal situation.
"Controlled airspace" exists for the purpose of separation of aircraft, and to a lesser degree, obstacle clearance ---- in normal flight, but the latter is still the ultimate responsibility of the PIC.
Have a think about it. Given the variety of aircraft types and possible engine out performance (or lack thereof) scenarios, short of controlled airspace to the ground, how would you do it ? You don't, and that's true for ICAO as well.
Equally, for operations where the PIC is expected to take advantage of controlled airspace where it is available (per. Ops. Manual), no PIC is expected to add "remaining in controlled airspace" to his or her lists of tasks in handling any emergency situation, engine out or whatever.
Thus, the fact that something heavy going off 16L/R at YSSY might go straight through the Victor VFR lane, in the event of an engine failure (it has happened --- birdstrike on two engines, B747-200) is accepted as a reasonable statistical risk. The same goes for 16 at YMML, etc. For anybody who thinks it should be otherwise, don't hold your breath, you'll only go blue in the face. It ain't going to change.
Call it what you will, "Risk Management/Cost-Benefit analysis"/ AS-NZ4360:2005/Affordable Safety/the Airspace Act 2007 (take you pick - they are all fundamentally the same) is here to stay, despite a valiant rearguard action by several groups.
The size of Military airspace at Williamtown, Richmond or anywhere else, has nothing to do with keeping civil aircraft in "controlled airspace" in the event of an emergency. Last time I noticed, Richmond zone boundaries were based on two ancient and seldom (if ever, now) used TACAN approaches.
The fundamental of military airspace design policy in Australia has long been "We won WWII, it all belongs to us", and unlike many countries, in Australia civil makes its own arrangements with "What's left", notwithstanding all sorts of various joint airspace/user agreements.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Centennial Park
Age: 61
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only thing worse than Willy ATC is airspace reform from Uncle Dick
Mate they should have had a little airspace laneway with a few signs up to let those pesky bastards flying the F18s know you are crossing Their Restricted airspace.
Mate they should have had a little airspace laneway with a few signs up to let those pesky bastards flying the F18s know you are crossing Their Restricted airspace.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASKARI said,
You seems to be equally as guilty as everyone else with your gutless, mindless attacks on people!
And where would that be?
As others and I have said, if a Victor one type area works at Mascot with 100 times more traffic than Willy why is it so different? Why is it so dangerous at Willy with some very switched on military flying and not at Mascot?
You seems to be equally as guilty as everyone else with your gutless, mindless attacks on people!
And where would that be?
As others and I have said, if a Victor one type area works at Mascot with 100 times more traffic than Willy why is it so different? Why is it so dangerous at Willy with some very switched on military flying and not at Mascot?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bleak City
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You seem to be equally as guilty as everyone else with your gutless, mindless attacks on people!
All due respect mate, SuperKnob is probably not gutless, mindless? Yes, more than likely, mainly he's just a knob and a dense one at that.
Hey SuperKnob
Super Cecil
Difference is that Willy is military, and they are able to close down all the airspace if they so desire. Also the runway is much closer to the coastal lane than in Sydney, and the approach path passes almost straight through it (at least thats how I remember it being, been a long time)
Also, there IS a Victor 1 style route through Willy airspace, no clearance required. Starts at Maitland, ends up just west of Taree. If anyone was concerned about holding, why not just use the inland lane and stay OCTA?
Yarr
Difference is that Willy is military, and they are able to close down all the airspace if they so desire. Also the runway is much closer to the coastal lane than in Sydney, and the approach path passes almost straight through it (at least thats how I remember it being, been a long time)
Also, there IS a Victor 1 style route through Willy airspace, no clearance required. Starts at Maitland, ends up just west of Taree. If anyone was concerned about holding, why not just use the inland lane and stay OCTA?
Yarr
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cap'n Arrr,
Why not change the way we think about VFR traffic being freely allowed into controlled airspace, especially where there is radar surveillance? Why do we hold onto these ideas that were popular 50 years ago?
See here where Buckley Air Force Base sits to the south of DIA, underneath Denver International Airport's Class B step. To the south west of Buckley is Centennial airport and 5nm southeast of DIA is Front Range airport, also underneath class B. As you can see, Buckley Air Force Base (military) is Class D and is traversed DAILY by VFR traffic flying from Centennial to Front Range Airport. I have made this short trip many times myself and on the occasions that the F16's of the ANG were present or the Air Force's A-10 were present we were told to remain clear of the Buckley Class D, otherwise we were promptly allowed to enter. If we did have to bypass the Air Force's Class D we only had to divert 4.3nm to the south of the airport or alternatively ask Denver Approach for a class B clearance and fly over the top of Buckley's Airspace.
What is interesting is that the Buckley Air Force Base Class D extends only 4.3NM from the airport itself. Compare this to the 24nms at Williamtown! Why on earth do we need all this wasteful class C airspace everywhere even with military traffic? The US has a great system but folks here are so resistant to changing anything.
Instead of devoting 80 odd posts on the topic inventing reasons not to change, why not look for solutions instead of problems? We need look no further than the parliament approved NAS!
MJ
If anyone was concerned about holding, why not just use the inland lane and stay OCTA?
Why not change the way we think about VFR traffic being freely allowed into controlled airspace, especially where there is radar surveillance? Why do we hold onto these ideas that were popular 50 years ago?
See here where Buckley Air Force Base sits to the south of DIA, underneath Denver International Airport's Class B step. To the south west of Buckley is Centennial airport and 5nm southeast of DIA is Front Range airport, also underneath class B. As you can see, Buckley Air Force Base (military) is Class D and is traversed DAILY by VFR traffic flying from Centennial to Front Range Airport. I have made this short trip many times myself and on the occasions that the F16's of the ANG were present or the Air Force's A-10 were present we were told to remain clear of the Buckley Class D, otherwise we were promptly allowed to enter. If we did have to bypass the Air Force's Class D we only had to divert 4.3nm to the south of the airport or alternatively ask Denver Approach for a class B clearance and fly over the top of Buckley's Airspace.
What is interesting is that the Buckley Air Force Base Class D extends only 4.3NM from the airport itself. Compare this to the 24nms at Williamtown! Why on earth do we need all this wasteful class C airspace everywhere even with military traffic? The US has a great system but folks here are so resistant to changing anything.
Instead of devoting 80 odd posts on the topic inventing reasons not to change, why not look for solutions instead of problems? We need look no further than the parliament approved NAS!
MJ
The US has a great system but folks here are so resistant to changing anything.
The US often has no choice with it's density of airports and traffic; we dont have either so the need for this flexibility may be less essential if such flexibility increases risk.
Its classic Risk / Reward stuff.
There is basically no choice in many areas of the US when it comes to sharing airspace - I can assure you it is riskier however than an entirely segregated system; and yes I do acknowledge the decreased flexibility that such a system may also entail.
I say again, the US system that has been mentioned here a few times does have higher risks from time to time depending on traffic, weather etc etc; also from the military point of view it can be a hassle to varying degrees and often degrades training (I have flown in US east coast airspace extensively with the USAF).
Not all of us having a go at Dick are saying a coastal lane is impossible or even uneccessary to some degree (I can see the desire from a GA POV); what we are saying is that a lane does not come without a change to risk and with possible degradation to military flexibility; and there should be a balance of risk / reward / operational impact. I am quite sure there are many factors that are worthy of consideration when it comes to an introduction of such a lane, and some may well be significant enough to outweigh the benefit.
The issue that we are having a go at him about is his stupid linking of a lack of a decision in his favour WRT a coastal lane, therefore implying a lack of professional ability amongst senior RAAF officers for the duties that they are trained for and have often carried out in real time combat operations.
For this reason he has no respect from me, and I know he has little respect amongst some of the senior military officers he so readily demeans.
Without respect, ones influence and effectiveness is usually seriously degraded; unless you happen to be the boss!
I see your pont mjbow2, and to be honest every time i ever asked for a coastal clearance from willy I have been given it, although I did have to hold for military training or the odd Jet* once or twice. I have also been often given clearance over the top of williamtown on several occasions and have always found them to be fairly flexible, especially considering I was in a 2 seat fixed pitch single at the time.
I understand what you mean about Buckley AFB, although VFR traffic are allowed to and do transit Willy every day as well. I've been given opposite direction F18 traffic more than once going up coastal, the zone doesn't close down for MIL TFC I guess is what I'm trying to say. If there is minimal traffic willy also allows you in without delay. If you are refused clearance, you can still get through by diverting through the inland lane, which is Class G and so always open. You made many valid points, and I am not trying to act contrary, I just feel that this is a different scenario to Buckley.
I'm not quite sure how this thread got to a debate on whether a coastal lane is possible or not, there already is one, you just need clearance, and occasionally have to hold. Difference between willy and yssy is (IMHO) proximity of the beach to the runway. Extreme example, would you fly 500' coastal past that airport in the carribean? Princess St Julienne I think it is?
I am not for one moment saying that my opinion is better than anyone elses, I accept that other people may see this differently to me, I am simply putting mine out there for you all to read, take from it what you will.
Clear skies and smooth seas
Yarrr
I understand what you mean about Buckley AFB, although VFR traffic are allowed to and do transit Willy every day as well. I've been given opposite direction F18 traffic more than once going up coastal, the zone doesn't close down for MIL TFC I guess is what I'm trying to say. If there is minimal traffic willy also allows you in without delay. If you are refused clearance, you can still get through by diverting through the inland lane, which is Class G and so always open. You made many valid points, and I am not trying to act contrary, I just feel that this is a different scenario to Buckley.
I'm not quite sure how this thread got to a debate on whether a coastal lane is possible or not, there already is one, you just need clearance, and occasionally have to hold. Difference between willy and yssy is (IMHO) proximity of the beach to the runway. Extreme example, would you fly 500' coastal past that airport in the carribean? Princess St Julienne I think it is?
I am not for one moment saying that my opinion is better than anyone elses, I accept that other people may see this differently to me, I am simply putting mine out there for you all to read, take from it what you will.
Clear skies and smooth seas
Yarrr