25 years of holding at Williamtown
ATC both civil and military may have been trying to help this pilot out rather than see any harm come to them
I’m not giving ATC a serve at all. I’m giving a serve to the people who are in charge of bringing in modern airspace and procedures into Australia
Why would that bloke have ever wanted to go inland towards the bad weather if he had thought for a second that he would have been able to fly VFR along the coast above the lowest safe altitude? The answer is simple – he knew it was highly unlikely
I have been told a number of times by senior military people that they agree that the procedures are out of date and they have informed me that the procedures would be updated. These people were fibbing as there has been no measurable change.
Last edited by bentleg; 19th Jan 2008 at 03:09.
Thread Starter
Bentleg, it looks as if in this particular case that it was the “perception” of the pilot that he would be refused or delayed in a clearance along the coast that resulted in him originally flight planning around the airspace and then not being prepared to wait for a clearance that he possibly perceived would never come.
Wouldn’t you think that the military would have issued advice after these probably needless fatalities that if VFR pilots encountered weather difficulties, they should immediately call Willy Approach and the military would facilitate a clearance wherever possible to save people being killed?
I understand that no such announcement has been issued in the intervening 25 years. Most pilots have a perception today that to get a VFR clearance through Williamtown when it is active is all but impossible unless you fly at 500 feet along the lane.
We have talked about the holding which takes place at Nobbys at 500 feet because a Metro may be coming in or departing. Why can’t ATC vector the VFR plane over the top of the airfield at, say, 2,500 feet? Surely there could be no safer place. Class D airspace in the USA only goes to 2,500 feet and VFR can transit across the top between 2,500 feet and 18,000 feet in Class E airspace.
I believe the reason the military don’t offer a clearance at any level VFR across the top of Williamtown is that it is simply not within their perception that holding an aircraft has any cost or safety connotations.
I transited the Williamtown airspace twice this weekend – once on Saturday morning and then on Sunday afternoon. It was a CTAF with more traffic than you ever hear during the week – everything from Airbuses landing to Virgin 737s departing. There was even a lone Robin aircraft (owned by an RAAF person?) flying locally from the airfield.
There was no air traffic control at all, so this surely shows the utter hypocrisy of the military hierarchy who state that when air traffic control appears, aircraft must be held. If they thought for a second that this was necessary for safety, surely they would have some arrangement for the weekends when their own personnel are travelling to and from Williamtown in the airline aircraft. No doubt they have no special arrangement for the weekends because they accept that the operation is safe.
Presumably the holding is because of some 1950s procedure that has never been updated.
I will look forward to advice on why, on a CAVOK day, when the only traffic is a civilian Metro, a VFR aircraft can’t be given a clearance over the top of Williamtown airfield from the south to the north rather than being held at Nobbys.
Wouldn’t you think that the military would have issued advice after these probably needless fatalities that if VFR pilots encountered weather difficulties, they should immediately call Willy Approach and the military would facilitate a clearance wherever possible to save people being killed?
I understand that no such announcement has been issued in the intervening 25 years. Most pilots have a perception today that to get a VFR clearance through Williamtown when it is active is all but impossible unless you fly at 500 feet along the lane.
We have talked about the holding which takes place at Nobbys at 500 feet because a Metro may be coming in or departing. Why can’t ATC vector the VFR plane over the top of the airfield at, say, 2,500 feet? Surely there could be no safer place. Class D airspace in the USA only goes to 2,500 feet and VFR can transit across the top between 2,500 feet and 18,000 feet in Class E airspace.
I believe the reason the military don’t offer a clearance at any level VFR across the top of Williamtown is that it is simply not within their perception that holding an aircraft has any cost or safety connotations.
I transited the Williamtown airspace twice this weekend – once on Saturday morning and then on Sunday afternoon. It was a CTAF with more traffic than you ever hear during the week – everything from Airbuses landing to Virgin 737s departing. There was even a lone Robin aircraft (owned by an RAAF person?) flying locally from the airfield.
There was no air traffic control at all, so this surely shows the utter hypocrisy of the military hierarchy who state that when air traffic control appears, aircraft must be held. If they thought for a second that this was necessary for safety, surely they would have some arrangement for the weekends when their own personnel are travelling to and from Williamtown in the airline aircraft. No doubt they have no special arrangement for the weekends because they accept that the operation is safe.
Presumably the holding is because of some 1950s procedure that has never been updated.
I will look forward to advice on why, on a CAVOK day, when the only traffic is a civilian Metro, a VFR aircraft can’t be given a clearance over the top of Williamtown airfield from the south to the north rather than being held at Nobbys.
Thread Starter
Bob55, it seems like a lifetime ago but on 20 December you stated:
Bob55, I have recently been advised by an FAA expert that the US requirement in Class C airspace for IFR to VFR vertical separation is 500 feet – i.e. the height of a 50 story building – and the horizontal separation when going through the same level is target resolution. Why do we need to have “standards” which are far different to those proven in other leading aviation countries – i.e. the USA and Canada?
Why wouldn’t air traffic controllers here want to follow modern international procedures? I know if I were an air traffic controller and I heard that another leading aviation country (where Qantas flies and tens of thousands of Australians have holidays each year) had a less onerous and more flexible standard, I would certainly want to consider it.
It seems to me from reading these posts that there are many people with closed minds. In effect, if a “standard” developed, say, in the 1930s, that is what we should stick with forever more and never ever query or move forward.
I ask the experts here – why don’t we follow the proven FAA separation standards between IFR and VFR in Class C airspace?
1000 FT by the coast doesn't cut it for ATC standards. You'd need 1500FT by the coast, and only if the VFR was operating not above 500 FT and 1 mile east of the coast.
Why wouldn’t air traffic controllers here want to follow modern international procedures? I know if I were an air traffic controller and I heard that another leading aviation country (where Qantas flies and tens of thousands of Australians have holidays each year) had a less onerous and more flexible standard, I would certainly want to consider it.
It seems to me from reading these posts that there are many people with closed minds. In effect, if a “standard” developed, say, in the 1930s, that is what we should stick with forever more and never ever query or move forward.
I ask the experts here – why don’t we follow the proven FAA separation standards between IFR and VFR in Class C airspace?
We do for Vertical Separation. V1 can be applied between IFR and VFR providing both are MTOW less than 7000kg and a few other things. The lateral separation is obviously somewhat different here in Australia.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australasia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, I was listening in to your conversation (diatribe) with WLM ATC on my brand new Bearcat BC92XLT scanner.... very professional stuff, I think you gave them a true indication of the type of guy they are dealing with.
I'm a little befuddled by your safety qaundry on the day, as I am not a trained helicopter pilot, why exactly would you be cutting orbits in your Agusta Helicopter??
Surely the brilliant aviator that you are - with the global situational awareness that you had at the time (you imply in your comments that you knew what was happening on WLM tower, WLM Centre......) - would have considered the safety of the public (your primary issue) and, um, hovered??
I'm a little befuddled by your safety qaundry on the day, as I am not a trained helicopter pilot, why exactly would you be cutting orbits in your Agusta Helicopter??
Surely the brilliant aviator that you are - with the global situational awareness that you had at the time (you imply in your comments that you knew what was happening on WLM tower, WLM Centre......) - would have considered the safety of the public (your primary issue) and, um, hovered??
Last edited by garudadude; 21st Jan 2008 at 09:28. Reason: Incorrectly quoted my scanning equipment.
USA airspace system working well today.
5 Killed in mid air near an airfield.
In reality it doesn't matter really what type of airspace it happens in. And yes we have to wait for the official report, but the media is saying it was an uncontrolled airport.
Computer simulations will run on 'simulated' information and tell you its all safe.....to a certain percentage.
5 deceased people is reality.
See and be seen my backside
Some people get this, some people don't.
May they RIP
5 Killed in mid air near an airfield.
In reality it doesn't matter really what type of airspace it happens in. And yes we have to wait for the official report, but the media is saying it was an uncontrolled airport.
Computer simulations will run on 'simulated' information and tell you its all safe.....to a certain percentage.
5 deceased people is reality.
See and be seen my backside
Some people get this, some people don't.
May they RIP
Last edited by ozbiggles; 21st Jan 2008 at 11:21.
Thread Starter
Ozbiggles, are you suggesting that because there has been a midair collision in the United States that we don’t update any of our 1930s procedures?
You may know that the US has approximately 15 midairs per year, and we have on average one midair per year. The US has about 15 times the number of aircraft in roughly the same airspace. Some experts say that the collision risk goes up with the square of the traffic density. Whether this is true or not, it shows that the US airspace system is extraordinarily safe when you consider the weather conditions, the high mountain ranges, and the very high density of traffic.
I find it fascinating that a small group of people will argue in every way they can to keep the status quo – i.e. never make a change.
A good example is in Airspace 2000, we attempted to bring in a recommendation that when on a two-way airway, aircraft should fly a small amount (0.1 nautical miles) to the right of track. This would help to prevent the type of accident which happened in Brazil on 29 September 2006, where 155 people died because air traffic control or pilot error put two aircraft in exactly the same airspace at the same time. Before RVSM and highly accurate GPS, the chance of them colliding would have been minimal. Now it is a foregone certainty.
It will be interesting to see when ICAO overcomes the people who are trying to stop change and brings in some type of requirement to fly at a certain distance to the right of track to help to prevent this type of terrible midair collision.
You may know that the US has approximately 15 midairs per year, and we have on average one midair per year. The US has about 15 times the number of aircraft in roughly the same airspace. Some experts say that the collision risk goes up with the square of the traffic density. Whether this is true or not, it shows that the US airspace system is extraordinarily safe when you consider the weather conditions, the high mountain ranges, and the very high density of traffic.
I find it fascinating that a small group of people will argue in every way they can to keep the status quo – i.e. never make a change.
A good example is in Airspace 2000, we attempted to bring in a recommendation that when on a two-way airway, aircraft should fly a small amount (0.1 nautical miles) to the right of track. This would help to prevent the type of accident which happened in Brazil on 29 September 2006, where 155 people died because air traffic control or pilot error put two aircraft in exactly the same airspace at the same time. Before RVSM and highly accurate GPS, the chance of them colliding would have been minimal. Now it is a foregone certainty.
It will be interesting to see when ICAO overcomes the people who are trying to stop change and brings in some type of requirement to fly at a certain distance to the right of track to help to prevent this type of terrible midair collision.
Thread Starter
Awol57, it is not just the lateral separation that is different. It is clear that the vertical separation is too as the US doesn’t have the 7,000 kg requirement for 500 foot separation.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enough Already!!!!! - Dick, as AirBumps succinctly said:
Go Away Pulease!!!!!!!! and take your crappy diatribes with you!!!!!!!!!!!
DK
Would you please give this a rest. Its Williamtown Air Force Base. Note its an AIR FORCE BASE. If you have to hold for a few minutes, take along a can of Harden-Up and drink it while your waiting.
DK
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This from Newcastle Airport management today...
Newcastle Airport is safe
Tuesday, 22 January 2008
A study conducted by the aviation safety regulator, Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in October 2007 determined that safety procedures undertaken at Newcastle Airport, including those for traffic control at weekends, meet safety standards. Newcastle Airport participated in this study together with airline operators and pilots.
Claims made by Mr Dick Smith in today’s Newcastle Herald that that the Airport was not safe on the weekend as the traffic control tower at RAAF Base, Williamtown was not manned, are unfounded.
“Mr Smith may not be aware of the full circumstances surrounding the operations of Newcastle Airport RAAF Base, Williamtown.
“Newcastle Airport works very closely with all government departments and regulators relating to aviation safety.
“A recent study undertaken by CASA in October last year determined that Newcastle Airport met safety standards.
“Air traffic control for Newcastle Airport is supplied by RAAF Base, Williamtown, who provide a world-class service. On the weekends when the tower is not operating, pilots use a common frequency traffic advisory to manage aircraft safety. All pilots are trained in this procedure – and it has been used successfully at Newcastle Airport for a number of years. It is completely safe and is endorsed by CASA.”
Mr Hughes noted that Mr Smith’s comment that there is an increase in aircraft movements on a weekend is incorrect. “There is up to 27% less scheduled aircraft movements on a weekend compared with a weekday. Furthermore the total number of aircraft movements for 2007 was less than that of 1998. This is because in the past decade the aircraft have become larger, accommodating more passengers.
“Newcastle Airport is an important asset to the Hunter region. The Airport injects more than $250 million each year into the economy and supports more than 2,100 jobs. The Airport is committed to the region’s growth and prosperity – shown by the current infrastructure development in the $10 million apron expansion.
“The Airport will continue to safely welcome passengers from all round Australia every day of the week.”
A study conducted by the aviation safety regulator, Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in October 2007 determined that safety procedures undertaken at Newcastle Airport, including those for traffic control at weekends, meet safety standards. Newcastle Airport participated in this study together with airline operators and pilots.
Claims made by Mr Dick Smith in today’s Newcastle Herald that that the Airport was not safe on the weekend as the traffic control tower at RAAF Base, Williamtown was not manned, are unfounded.
“Mr Smith may not be aware of the full circumstances surrounding the operations of Newcastle Airport RAAF Base, Williamtown.
“Newcastle Airport works very closely with all government departments and regulators relating to aviation safety.
“A recent study undertaken by CASA in October last year determined that Newcastle Airport met safety standards.
“Air traffic control for Newcastle Airport is supplied by RAAF Base, Williamtown, who provide a world-class service. On the weekends when the tower is not operating, pilots use a common frequency traffic advisory to manage aircraft safety. All pilots are trained in this procedure – and it has been used successfully at Newcastle Airport for a number of years. It is completely safe and is endorsed by CASA.”
Mr Hughes noted that Mr Smith’s comment that there is an increase in aircraft movements on a weekend is incorrect. “There is up to 27% less scheduled aircraft movements on a weekend compared with a weekday. Furthermore the total number of aircraft movements for 2007 was less than that of 1998. This is because in the past decade the aircraft have become larger, accommodating more passengers.
“Newcastle Airport is an important asset to the Hunter region. The Airport injects more than $250 million each year into the economy and supports more than 2,100 jobs. The Airport is committed to the region’s growth and prosperity – shown by the current infrastructure development in the $10 million apron expansion.
“The Airport will continue to safely welcome passengers from all round Australia every day of the week.”
Need To Speed
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia (Brisbane)
Age: 56
Posts: 114
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've mostly flown through Williamtown airspace on weekends and i feel the CTAF system is completely safe. I have used the low level VFR route through the airspace during the week also and again had no troubles but i haven't been at "altitude" and asked for a clearance "direct" so i have no idea if this is even approved for PPL's and non RPT. Has anyone had any dealings in this area and did you have to hold or refused permission? As an ex-RAAFie from Williamtown i also know that the airspace is very busy mostly in daylight hours but whenever ATC is operating, that means there are fast movers in the area. No ATC, no fast movers operating.
I'm now in Brisbane doing my CPL and i often fly through Amberley and Oakey Mil CTR's "direct" and have never had to hold yet. I imagine WLM would be the same but as i mentioned, i never tried back when i was low hour PPL.
I'm now in Brisbane doing my CPL and i often fly through Amberley and Oakey Mil CTR's "direct" and have never had to hold yet. I imagine WLM would be the same but as i mentioned, i never tried back when i was low hour PPL.
Thread Starter
FoxtrotAlpha18, thanks for posting the Newcastle Airport Management press release.
Why don’t you see if you can get hold of a copy of the so-called “safety study”? There is a proven study which has been used for decades in Australia in relation to such airports. It is called the Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria for Airport Traffic Control Towers. It is based in the US criteria and it has been used in the last few years to justify the continuance of air traffic control at Hamilton Island, and also the closure of the tower at Wagga.
You will find they haven’t used this formula this time because it will clearly show that the tower should be manned.
The so-called “recent study undertaken by CASA” is most likely just a number of opinions and statements without actually looking at the cost of manning the tower and the number of lives that could be potentially saved – which is the only way you can do this properly.
I understand that there have been some very serious incidents at Williamtown in the last 18 months – caused by the “fail/dangerous”, “blind calling” procedures that do not exist anywhere in the world that I know of.
Dark Knight, you can tell me to go away, but I can assure you that there are many airline pilots who are scared of losing their jobs if they posted their true thoughts on this site.
Manning the air traffic control tower on weekends would cost less than 50 cents per passenger. Would you be prepared to pay 50 cents for proper ATC? I certainly would to protect myself and my family.
In relation to the alleged reduction of scheduled aircraft movements on a weekend, this may be so, however the amount of light aircraft overflying the airport on weekends increases dramatically – after all, that is when most lighties go flying.
Dark Knight, yes I agree it is an Air Force base, but it happens to be used by 1.5 million civilian passengers per year. Surely proper and efficient ATC can be provided when the RPT jet airlines are present, and surely this should not mean delaying other aircraft when conditions are CAVOK.
Isn’t it interesting that Albury (with 212,000 passengers per year) and Coffs Harbour (with 323,000 passengers per year) have 7 day per week control towers, however Williamtown (which is now moving to 1.5 million passengers per year) only has a control tower on weekdays?
It looks to me as if we go from the most ridiculous 1930s type of Colonial India "over control" during the week, to an absolutely nothing laissez-faire free for all on the weekends. If they are not even game to do a proper study or to release the safety study they have done, you know that something dishonest is going on.
Why don’t you see if you can get hold of a copy of the so-called “safety study”? There is a proven study which has been used for decades in Australia in relation to such airports. It is called the Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria for Airport Traffic Control Towers. It is based in the US criteria and it has been used in the last few years to justify the continuance of air traffic control at Hamilton Island, and also the closure of the tower at Wagga.
You will find they haven’t used this formula this time because it will clearly show that the tower should be manned.
The so-called “recent study undertaken by CASA” is most likely just a number of opinions and statements without actually looking at the cost of manning the tower and the number of lives that could be potentially saved – which is the only way you can do this properly.
I understand that there have been some very serious incidents at Williamtown in the last 18 months – caused by the “fail/dangerous”, “blind calling” procedures that do not exist anywhere in the world that I know of.
Dark Knight, you can tell me to go away, but I can assure you that there are many airline pilots who are scared of losing their jobs if they posted their true thoughts on this site.
Manning the air traffic control tower on weekends would cost less than 50 cents per passenger. Would you be prepared to pay 50 cents for proper ATC? I certainly would to protect myself and my family.
In relation to the alleged reduction of scheduled aircraft movements on a weekend, this may be so, however the amount of light aircraft overflying the airport on weekends increases dramatically – after all, that is when most lighties go flying.
Dark Knight, yes I agree it is an Air Force base, but it happens to be used by 1.5 million civilian passengers per year. Surely proper and efficient ATC can be provided when the RPT jet airlines are present, and surely this should not mean delaying other aircraft when conditions are CAVOK.
Isn’t it interesting that Albury (with 212,000 passengers per year) and Coffs Harbour (with 323,000 passengers per year) have 7 day per week control towers, however Williamtown (which is now moving to 1.5 million passengers per year) only has a control tower on weekdays?
It looks to me as if we go from the most ridiculous 1930s type of Colonial India "over control" during the week, to an absolutely nothing laissez-faire free for all on the weekends. If they are not even game to do a proper study or to release the safety study they have done, you know that something dishonest is going on.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 22nd Jan 2008 at 02:34.
Thread Starter
Silence, silence, silence
I have asked two important questions on two different posts.
Has the silence been because most air traffic controllers who read this site believe that we should update to modern international procedures, but if they say this they might be lynched by the few whose minds are set in concrete?
I will look forward to advice on why, on a CAVOK day, when the only traffic is a civilian Metro, a VFR aircraft can’t be given a clearance over the top of Williamtown airfield from the south to the north rather than being held at Nobbys.
I ask the experts here – why don’t we follow the proven FAA separation standards between IFR and VFR in Class C airspace?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
No I am not prepared to pay another 50 cents for ATC because I am already paying for this and much more every time I pay my taxes and certainly when I purchase a ticket.
The charges shown below for Newcastle and Mackay (which is used an illustration and is more detailed to the total airport charges - at any airport buying a coke and/or sandwich at highly outrageous inflated prices reflects the charges levied by the airport operator to pay for operating their airport.)
Every ticket has included charges for ATC, CASA, BASI, etc, etc plus fuel surcharges, baggage charges, security charges, ad infinitum.
What a load of Bollocks! If this is true then it is a reflection of the a weak kneed breed of airline pilot we have today which if correct would have my family & I more worried than your supposed concern of `lack of proper ATC' Having been an airline pilot around the world for 38 plus years it would seem my compatriots, without fear or favour, would do the same as one did years ago in telling the then Minister for Aviation (one Charlie Jones) to catch the next flight.
The instructions for operating into Williamtown shown below have been essentially thus since I was flying Chipmunks into/through there many years ago and operating various RPT aircraft in there for many years. It works pretty well which is not to say however, there is not room for improvement or keeping up with the times.
And, again, it is an Air Force Base ie it is theirs, thier rules and their trainset - if you want to play you play to their rules or not at all.
Now Dick answer me this - when you fly around the world to the all & many countries you have flown to whos rules do you fly to??
Yes - theirs, no questions, no queries, no correspondence will be entered into ie, their country, their rules their trainset - you want to play (fly there) these are OUR rules!
However (again) who is going to spend money on aviation? For all their talk to get elected, the history of Labor governments is abysmal relating to aviation.
How much will the punters pocket bear?
Bollocks again! When was the last time you experienced Colonial India Control? Given the lack of facilities they had they do a pretty good job and with the way India is progressing they will be way in front of this country within a short period of time. The comments about studies follows the argument of those who really have nought to contribute therefore suggest another study creating jobs for themselves or mates achieving little than another carbon producing, tree felling report to gather dust is some dark, hidden archive.
another Dick Smith conspiracy theory really too puerile to comment on!
Dick, who banged on & on about affordable safety?
I would suggest it is the opinion of many within the aviation industry that your `contributions' in the aviation industry have done far more damage than good for the industry achieving little other than dissent.
Please, Oh Please, go back to the North Pole and check how the ice is melting or something!
DK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information for Itinerant aircraft
Reference: ERSA 2006 - Williamtown – Remarks
The following information is to assist those planning to visit Newcastle Airport.
Prior to your operation, you must obtain an approval number from RAAF Base Williamtown, Base Operations as detailed in ERSA. Once you have obtained your approval number, contact Newcastle Airport Operations for a parking allocation.
The Duty Operations Officer will require the following details of your itinerary / visit.
Name of operator;
Address/Phone number/Fax number;
Aircraft Type;
Aircraft Registration Number ;
ETA/ETD;
Special Requirements (ie Catering, Fuel etc.);
Passenger Numbers in/out;
RAAF Approval Number
Fees for Itinerant Aircraft
Terminal Passenger Charge $8.30 per passenger (arriving and departing) + GST
Apron Charge $5.00 per tonne based on MTOW (per aircraft landing) + GST
Minimum Apron Charge $25.00 + GST below 5 tonne per landing
Overnight Parking Charge $5.50 per tonne (after 2 Hours) per day based on MTOW with a minimum of $50.00 per aircraft + GST
Passenger Screening Charge Passenger screening fee will apply for all departing passengers as mandated
Marshalling $25.00 per aircraft + GST
NOTE:
All other charges will be negotiated between the aircraft operator and Newcastle Airport Ltd prior to the flight operating.
Aircraft service and baggage handling fees may apply.
Refer to ERSA for further details
Mackay Airport Charges
The following charges apply in respect of services shown from 1st January 2007 and are inclusive of GST.
Business Enterprise Permits
Description Costs
Gift, jewellery, fancy goods, newsagency and other sales $6103.45 pa
Self-drive car hire service $8413.93 pa
Tourist information centre (non selling) $81.48 pa
Any business enterprise not specified herein but
approved by the authority $500.83 pa
Aircraft Parking - Annual Charge for Permanently Allocated Bays
Description Base Rate
Per Square Metre of Parking Bay/s Occupied $11.35
Discount if paid Monthly 10%
Discount if paid Yearly 20%
CASUAL PARKING NO CHARGE.
Included in landing charge
Passenger Charge
Description Cost
Per passenger arriving or departing through the terminal $10.37
Cargo Charge
Description Cost
Goods discharged from or loaded from aircraft $39.56 Per Tonne
Landing Charge
Description Cost
ALL AIRCRAFT $10.16 Per Tonne
Bulk Landing Fee for aircraft permanently based on airport, a bulk landing fee is negotiable based on turnover
Discount base landing charge if paid Quarterly 10%
Discount base landing charge if paid Quarterly 15%
Discount base landing charge if paid Annually 25%
Minimum Landing Charge $11.00
Commonwealth Government Goods and Services Tax All invoice prices are charged inclusive of Commonwealth Government Goods and Services Tax (GST)
No I am not prepared to pay another 50 cents for ATC because I am already paying for this and much more every time I pay my taxes and certainly when I purchase a ticket.
The charges shown below for Newcastle and Mackay (which is used an illustration and is more detailed to the total airport charges - at any airport buying a coke and/or sandwich at highly outrageous inflated prices reflects the charges levied by the airport operator to pay for operating their airport.)
Every ticket has included charges for ATC, CASA, BASI, etc, etc plus fuel surcharges, baggage charges, security charges, ad infinitum.
but I can assure you that there are many airline pilots who are scared of losing their jobs if they posted their true thoughts on this site.
The instructions for operating into Williamtown shown below have been essentially thus since I was flying Chipmunks into/through there many years ago and operating various RPT aircraft in there for many years. It works pretty well which is not to say however, there is not room for improvement or keeping up with the times.
And, again, it is an Air Force Base ie it is theirs, thier rules and their trainset - if you want to play you play to their rules or not at all.
Now Dick answer me this - when you fly around the world to the all & many countries you have flown to whos rules do you fly to??
Yes - theirs, no questions, no queries, no correspondence will be entered into ie, their country, their rules their trainset - you want to play (fly there) these are OUR rules!
However (again) who is going to spend money on aviation? For all their talk to get elected, the history of Labor governments is abysmal relating to aviation.
How much will the punters pocket bear?
It looks to me as if we go from the most ridiculous 1930s type of Colonial India "over control" during the week, to an absolutely nothing laissez-faire free for all on the weekends. If they are not even game to do a proper study or to release the safety study they have done, you know that something dishonest is going on.
you know that something dishonest is going on
Dick, who banged on & on about affordable safety?
I would suggest it is the opinion of many within the aviation industry that your `contributions' in the aviation industry have done far more damage than good for the industry achieving little other than dissent.
Please, Oh Please, go back to the North Pole and check how the ice is melting or something!
DK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information for Itinerant aircraft
Reference: ERSA 2006 - Williamtown – Remarks
The following information is to assist those planning to visit Newcastle Airport.
Prior to your operation, you must obtain an approval number from RAAF Base Williamtown, Base Operations as detailed in ERSA. Once you have obtained your approval number, contact Newcastle Airport Operations for a parking allocation.
The Duty Operations Officer will require the following details of your itinerary / visit.
Name of operator;
Address/Phone number/Fax number;
Aircraft Type;
Aircraft Registration Number ;
ETA/ETD;
Special Requirements (ie Catering, Fuel etc.);
Passenger Numbers in/out;
RAAF Approval Number
Fees for Itinerant Aircraft
Terminal Passenger Charge $8.30 per passenger (arriving and departing) + GST
Apron Charge $5.00 per tonne based on MTOW (per aircraft landing) + GST
Minimum Apron Charge $25.00 + GST below 5 tonne per landing
Overnight Parking Charge $5.50 per tonne (after 2 Hours) per day based on MTOW with a minimum of $50.00 per aircraft + GST
Passenger Screening Charge Passenger screening fee will apply for all departing passengers as mandated
Marshalling $25.00 per aircraft + GST
NOTE:
All other charges will be negotiated between the aircraft operator and Newcastle Airport Ltd prior to the flight operating.
Aircraft service and baggage handling fees may apply.
Refer to ERSA for further details
Mackay Airport Charges
The following charges apply in respect of services shown from 1st January 2007 and are inclusive of GST.
Business Enterprise Permits
Description Costs
Gift, jewellery, fancy goods, newsagency and other sales $6103.45 pa
Self-drive car hire service $8413.93 pa
Tourist information centre (non selling) $81.48 pa
Any business enterprise not specified herein but
approved by the authority $500.83 pa
Aircraft Parking - Annual Charge for Permanently Allocated Bays
Description Base Rate
Per Square Metre of Parking Bay/s Occupied $11.35
Discount if paid Monthly 10%
Discount if paid Yearly 20%
CASUAL PARKING NO CHARGE.
Included in landing charge
Passenger Charge
Description Cost
Per passenger arriving or departing through the terminal $10.37
Cargo Charge
Description Cost
Goods discharged from or loaded from aircraft $39.56 Per Tonne
Landing Charge
Description Cost
ALL AIRCRAFT $10.16 Per Tonne
Bulk Landing Fee for aircraft permanently based on airport, a bulk landing fee is negotiable based on turnover
Discount base landing charge if paid Quarterly 10%
Discount base landing charge if paid Quarterly 15%
Discount base landing charge if paid Annually 25%
Minimum Landing Charge $11.00
Commonwealth Government Goods and Services Tax All invoice prices are charged inclusive of Commonwealth Government Goods and Services Tax (GST)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australasia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith, you state:
I'm looking at 8 pages of the experts replying to you and giving you the advice that you had requested.... but you're still not happy and now Willytown is supposedly unsafe as a CTAF!
I reckon you shouldn't bother to ask questions if you already know everything.
I have asked two important questions on two different posts.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I will look forward to advice on why, on a CAVOK day, when the only traffic is a civilian Metro, a VFR aircraft can’t be given a clearance over the top of Williamtown airfield from the south to the north rather than being held at Nobbys.
I ask the experts here – why don’t we follow the proven FAA separation standards between IFR and VFR in Class C airspace?
Has the silence been because most air traffic controllers who read this site believe that we should update to modern international procedures, but if they say this they might be lynched by the few whose minds are set in concrete?
Has the silence been because most air traffic controllers who read this site believe that we should update to modern international procedures, but if they say this they might be lynched by the few whose minds are set in concrete?
I reckon you shouldn't bother to ask questions if you already know everything.
For those unable to access a hard copy of The Newcastle Herald as mentioned in Post 156 here is the link to the article concerned.
http://theherald.yourguide.com.au/ne...e/1166553.html
http://theherald.yourguide.com.au/ne...e/1166553.html
Thread Starter
Garudadude, the problem is that even though there have been 8 pages of comments, the two particular questions have not been answered.
Remember there was extensive discussion on why an aircraft should be held at Nobbys because the departing aircraft may have an engine failure. Surely if the VFR aircraft was given a clearance over the top of the airfield (say, at 3,500’) the problem created by an engine failure would not exist.
Regarding the separation standards, yes, there have been comments stating that the standards are different between Australia and North America, however no one has said why we can’t follow the more efficient FAA standards.
In relation to Williamtown being “supposedly unsafe as a CTAF” I have been consistent on this issue for over 20 years. That is, a proper cost benefit safety study should be used to decide when to move from a CTAF to a Class D tower. This criteria was originally introduced in the early 1990s.
If you don’t need any form of air traffic control (or even a UNICOM to confirm that the radio is working) for an airport which has 1.5 million passenger movements and a lot of VFR traffic flying through the airspace, where do you need a Class D tower?
I have never claimed to know the answer to the questions I have asked, but I am mystified as to why controllers would not want to follow proven practices from leading aviation countries if they are more efficient and give a high level of safety.
This issue is amazing. When I claimed that the tower at Avalon should be manned (with over 1 million passenger enplanements at the airport) I was generally rubbished – even by alleged airline pilots. When it became obvious that the establishment and disestablishment formula had never been applied to Avalon, people then attacked on other fronts.
I know the majority of pilots and air traffic controllers can understand what I’m getting at. That is, we have an air traffic control organisation which is obsessed with profits and bonuses, and we appear to have a safety regulator which is not prepared to stand up to them.
This all goes back to the lack of staffing – which would appear to me to be gross negligence.
PilotEyes, the reason Airservices Australia cannot man the tower on weekends is because the Air Force will not allow it. They will not allow civilian controllers in “their” tower. Why we have a completely separate civilian and military air traffic control system is beyond me.
Remember there was extensive discussion on why an aircraft should be held at Nobbys because the departing aircraft may have an engine failure. Surely if the VFR aircraft was given a clearance over the top of the airfield (say, at 3,500’) the problem created by an engine failure would not exist.
Regarding the separation standards, yes, there have been comments stating that the standards are different between Australia and North America, however no one has said why we can’t follow the more efficient FAA standards.
In relation to Williamtown being “supposedly unsafe as a CTAF” I have been consistent on this issue for over 20 years. That is, a proper cost benefit safety study should be used to decide when to move from a CTAF to a Class D tower. This criteria was originally introduced in the early 1990s.
If you don’t need any form of air traffic control (or even a UNICOM to confirm that the radio is working) for an airport which has 1.5 million passenger movements and a lot of VFR traffic flying through the airspace, where do you need a Class D tower?
I have never claimed to know the answer to the questions I have asked, but I am mystified as to why controllers would not want to follow proven practices from leading aviation countries if they are more efficient and give a high level of safety.
This issue is amazing. When I claimed that the tower at Avalon should be manned (with over 1 million passenger enplanements at the airport) I was generally rubbished – even by alleged airline pilots. When it became obvious that the establishment and disestablishment formula had never been applied to Avalon, people then attacked on other fronts.
I know the majority of pilots and air traffic controllers can understand what I’m getting at. That is, we have an air traffic control organisation which is obsessed with profits and bonuses, and we appear to have a safety regulator which is not prepared to stand up to them.
This all goes back to the lack of staffing – which would appear to me to be gross negligence.
PilotEyes, the reason Airservices Australia cannot man the tower on weekends is because the Air Force will not allow it. They will not allow civilian controllers in “their” tower. Why we have a completely separate civilian and military air traffic control system is beyond me.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why we have a completely separate civilian and military air traffic control system is beyond me.
Maybe a better option is that the Hunter gets itself a new hub, with a fast rail/road infrastructure and becomes a real second Sydney option; not a pretend one?
As for not using "their" tower; well what happens at YSCB; is that still a military base? I heard Terry O'Connor (ASA spin doctor) saying using a temporary tower wasn't an option; well if the PR man knows that, then they must have had it on the agenda at some stage.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Your original complaint so far as I could see was regarding the procedures for the coastal VFR route and that you blamed senior military officials for those procedures.
Now it would appear that you have returned to your favourite themes of changing airspace classification and separation standards to be the same as the US and that this is the solution to the problems on the VFR route.
I'm sure you would be aware, but I will point it out anyway, the military don't make the separation standards, so I fail to see how it is the fault of senior military officials if the problem is the separation standards. While I am sure that there would be a military person (perhaps even a couple) who are part of the group who make these decisions it is a bit rich to blame them for everything.
Same goes with airspace classification. AIP/MATS clearly states that all military CTZ restricted areas at or below FL285 are class C airspace. Therefore it is not a matter of simply changing one military CTZ to a class D tower, it would involve much wider procedural changes. Again this is not the sole responsibility of senior military officials.
As for your other questions:
Sure, overflying aircraft at 3500 would solve the problem of an engine failure on departure, but it would create others. Light aircraft fly slowly (particularly helicopters....) and Hornets fly quickly. I am willing to bet that a light aircraft cruising through at that level would get in the way. Things are not always simple.
Regarding why ATC is required during the week but it is supposedly safe to operate on weekends with higher traffic levels (not that you have provided any proof of this other than your personal opinion) I would suggest that one reason would be funding. Military ATC has sufficient manning and funding to provide services for military aircraft. Thats their job, not to provide ATS for civilian aircraft. During the week when there is both around then civies get the bonus of ATC. That doesn't mean it is safer on the weekends, I would agree it probably isn't as safe, but that isn't the military's fault or problem. Perhaps you should try lobbying the new government for some more money instead.
Your original complaint so far as I could see was regarding the procedures for the coastal VFR route and that you blamed senior military officials for those procedures.
Now it would appear that you have returned to your favourite themes of changing airspace classification and separation standards to be the same as the US and that this is the solution to the problems on the VFR route.
I'm sure you would be aware, but I will point it out anyway, the military don't make the separation standards, so I fail to see how it is the fault of senior military officials if the problem is the separation standards. While I am sure that there would be a military person (perhaps even a couple) who are part of the group who make these decisions it is a bit rich to blame them for everything.
Same goes with airspace classification. AIP/MATS clearly states that all military CTZ restricted areas at or below FL285 are class C airspace. Therefore it is not a matter of simply changing one military CTZ to a class D tower, it would involve much wider procedural changes. Again this is not the sole responsibility of senior military officials.
As for your other questions:
Sure, overflying aircraft at 3500 would solve the problem of an engine failure on departure, but it would create others. Light aircraft fly slowly (particularly helicopters....) and Hornets fly quickly. I am willing to bet that a light aircraft cruising through at that level would get in the way. Things are not always simple.
Regarding why ATC is required during the week but it is supposedly safe to operate on weekends with higher traffic levels (not that you have provided any proof of this other than your personal opinion) I would suggest that one reason would be funding. Military ATC has sufficient manning and funding to provide services for military aircraft. Thats their job, not to provide ATS for civilian aircraft. During the week when there is both around then civies get the bonus of ATC. That doesn't mean it is safer on the weekends, I would agree it probably isn't as safe, but that isn't the military's fault or problem. Perhaps you should try lobbying the new government for some more money instead.
the reason Airservices Australia cannot man the tower on weekends is because the Air Force will not allow it.
And don't say it is as simple as adding 50c to each ticket. There are not simple solutions to complex problems.
Dick, I was listening in to your conversation (diatribe) with WLM ATC on my brand new Bearcat BC92XLT scanner.... very professional stuff, I think you gave them a true indication of the type of guy they are dealing with.
Exactly what was said?
A good example is in Airspace 2000, we attempted to bring in a recommendation that when on a two-way airway, aircraft should fly a small amount (0.1 nautical miles) to the right of track.
Manning the air traffic control tower on weekends