Clearances for VFR in ADF control zones
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Super Cecil holding at AMB
I can field this one....
A month or so ago I was held for half an hour outside Amberly, I was trying to operate about ten miles to the north of AMB up to 500' above ground. AMB were notified the day before, I was told on the phone half an hour before I took off AMB was not active then as I approached I called anyway and was told to hold. There were two 111's landed after the half hour holding then AMB shut down, I had a transponder with appropriate or allocated code. I was no threat to inbound traffic and was operating 1500' below their path.
10 miles north of AMB puts you on 10 mile final for RWY 15, the most common rwy in use and the only one with ILS. To operate at 500ft AGL in that area, most AMB ATC's would give you a clearance of NA 1500ft AMSL to allow you to avoid terrain and us to use + 1000ft to separate with other acft on QNH. (Can't apply the vert standard between AGL and AMSL) At 9nm on the ILS the descent profile dips below A025.
Without knowing what the weather was like on that day, I'm guessing that the pigs wanted an ILS (either due wx or for currency) or wanted a type of tactical approach - low and fast usually - again either due wx, or for training purposes.
If your area of ops had been elsewhere in the zone, I doubt you would have encountered any delay (there is often fire ant spraying, parachute ops and local photographic work taking place around the zone while mil flying occurs). But being on final puts you in the way.
With a C17 you could easily be given see and avoid (caution lotsa wake turb!) but the pigs moving quickly have no chance of seeing you and by the time you see them, we would have lost sep. So using radar or some form of procedural (vert, you nth of the hwy, them a mile sth etc) sounds like the only option.
Also, it sounds like an out of hours move, which means minimum staff for normal airspace (2 controllers covering 4 frequencies and relevant coord with our brissie neighbours) and using the TWR equip rather than the big screens downstairs. Given that you needed a 10 minute window, based on the pigs estimate I guess the guys on decided to hold you out rather than disturb you during your ops (also, we do get bitten occassionally by acft not being able to manouvre quickly enough to get out of the way when instructed).
Kudos to you for checking the AMB status (as ERSA says - the published hours are just a guide - even to the duty controller sometimes! So always check first!) Unfortunately AMB's published priorities start with mil acft and a couple of pages later get to VFR civil ops. Not my call, just the rules, if the mil guys want exclusive use (as a visiting C130 did a week or so ago, taking over the whole CTR and forcing the AF guys to go the long way round) there's nothing we can do unless you say the magic words (not "please" - declare those emergencies guys!)
As for rules, we recently tried to implement a local procedure so that we wouldn't have to apply a normal sep standard between IFR acft and extremely low level ops (eg fire ant chopper/ power line surveys operating at below pwr line/tree top height).
Because the low level guys are often not able to be seen by the TWR (tress in the way!) and are operating too close to the field to apply either radar or vert, in order to facilitate a dep/arr, we have to get the choppers to either land, go away (to establish a 1nm procedural standard) or climb to a point where they can be visually separated.
We wanted to create a local rule whereby we could just pass traffic (on the grounds that before the IFR acft hits the chopper - he would have already hit the treetops/ pwr lines!) This was rejected by a pilot (most agreed, but there was one dissenting squadron).
Rules and procedures govern everything we do and they (more frequently than incompetence) are the reason why you don't always get what you want. Most of us (particularly those with joint user base experience) try really hard to accomodate civil traffic - after all you have to pay for your fuel! And some of us are more creative than others in the way we apply the rules, but there are some points that just aren't up for negotiation.
Thanks to those who've posted positive feedback (it's rare!) and I've posted this before and I'll post it again - if you ever have any concerns, worries or gripes about the service provided to you - please contact the relevant ATC unit (numbers are in ERSA) and talk to a supervisor. We may be able to explain things to your satisfaction, or you may be able to convince us that we can do better for you next time. But we don't know if you don't tell! Happy flying!
A month or so ago I was held for half an hour outside Amberly, I was trying to operate about ten miles to the north of AMB up to 500' above ground. AMB were notified the day before, I was told on the phone half an hour before I took off AMB was not active then as I approached I called anyway and was told to hold. There were two 111's landed after the half hour holding then AMB shut down, I had a transponder with appropriate or allocated code. I was no threat to inbound traffic and was operating 1500' below their path.
10 miles north of AMB puts you on 10 mile final for RWY 15, the most common rwy in use and the only one with ILS. To operate at 500ft AGL in that area, most AMB ATC's would give you a clearance of NA 1500ft AMSL to allow you to avoid terrain and us to use + 1000ft to separate with other acft on QNH. (Can't apply the vert standard between AGL and AMSL) At 9nm on the ILS the descent profile dips below A025.
Without knowing what the weather was like on that day, I'm guessing that the pigs wanted an ILS (either due wx or for currency) or wanted a type of tactical approach - low and fast usually - again either due wx, or for training purposes.
If your area of ops had been elsewhere in the zone, I doubt you would have encountered any delay (there is often fire ant spraying, parachute ops and local photographic work taking place around the zone while mil flying occurs). But being on final puts you in the way.
With a C17 you could easily be given see and avoid (caution lotsa wake turb!) but the pigs moving quickly have no chance of seeing you and by the time you see them, we would have lost sep. So using radar or some form of procedural (vert, you nth of the hwy, them a mile sth etc) sounds like the only option.
Also, it sounds like an out of hours move, which means minimum staff for normal airspace (2 controllers covering 4 frequencies and relevant coord with our brissie neighbours) and using the TWR equip rather than the big screens downstairs. Given that you needed a 10 minute window, based on the pigs estimate I guess the guys on decided to hold you out rather than disturb you during your ops (also, we do get bitten occassionally by acft not being able to manouvre quickly enough to get out of the way when instructed).
Kudos to you for checking the AMB status (as ERSA says - the published hours are just a guide - even to the duty controller sometimes! So always check first!) Unfortunately AMB's published priorities start with mil acft and a couple of pages later get to VFR civil ops. Not my call, just the rules, if the mil guys want exclusive use (as a visiting C130 did a week or so ago, taking over the whole CTR and forcing the AF guys to go the long way round) there's nothing we can do unless you say the magic words (not "please" - declare those emergencies guys!)
As for rules, we recently tried to implement a local procedure so that we wouldn't have to apply a normal sep standard between IFR acft and extremely low level ops (eg fire ant chopper/ power line surveys operating at below pwr line/tree top height).
Because the low level guys are often not able to be seen by the TWR (tress in the way!) and are operating too close to the field to apply either radar or vert, in order to facilitate a dep/arr, we have to get the choppers to either land, go away (to establish a 1nm procedural standard) or climb to a point where they can be visually separated.
We wanted to create a local rule whereby we could just pass traffic (on the grounds that before the IFR acft hits the chopper - he would have already hit the treetops/ pwr lines!) This was rejected by a pilot (most agreed, but there was one dissenting squadron).
Rules and procedures govern everything we do and they (more frequently than incompetence) are the reason why you don't always get what you want. Most of us (particularly those with joint user base experience) try really hard to accomodate civil traffic - after all you have to pay for your fuel! And some of us are more creative than others in the way we apply the rules, but there are some points that just aren't up for negotiation.
Thanks to those who've posted positive feedback (it's rare!) and I've posted this before and I'll post it again - if you ever have any concerns, worries or gripes about the service provided to you - please contact the relevant ATC unit (numbers are in ERSA) and talk to a supervisor. We may be able to explain things to your satisfaction, or you may be able to convince us that we can do better for you next time. But we don't know if you don't tell! Happy flying!
I'm going to try to be as diplomatic as piossible here, but I'll probably fail.
As an observer looking at these responses and looking at comments in previous threads, it seems that those who have major dramas with Military CTA ... tend to do so consistently ...
Anyone doing serious research on this theme would be asking questions like ... " are thse people doing something, or not doing something, that brings them this consistent grief ?"
Maybe it's just coincidence ... maybe not ...
As an observer looking at these responses and looking at comments in previous threads, it seems that those who have major dramas with Military CTA ... tend to do so consistently ...
Anyone doing serious research on this theme would be asking questions like ... " are thse people doing something, or not doing something, that brings them this consistent grief ?"
Maybe it's just coincidence ... maybe not ...
Probably because I'm a bit lazy I try to phone the ATCOs the day prior. I ALWAYS call an hour or so before I launch. It almost invariably prevents surprises when I call approaching the boundary. I do, naturally, have the tracks etc. on my plan to route around the zone just in case.
Oh yes for the record, I operate out of YSCN.
Put me down as a satisfied customer.
Oh yes for the record, I operate out of YSCN.
Put me down as a satisfied customer.
I see in the RAAFASA’s post the key to one of the problems. Let’s quote:
I have spoken to many military air traffic controllers about the enlightened procedures which take place in the UK, Canada and the USA, most would like to bring those procedures in, however they tell me that the total resistance to change and concrete mindedness of those in authority stop this from happening.
Here is a classic example, it looks as if the experienced and professional air traffic controllers wanted to bring in a local procedure that would facilitate movement of traffic and make it more similar to what happens overseas and “a pilot" was able to stop this from happening. It reminds me of the situation with the victor lane over a decade ago, where one pilot managed to stop its introduction for nearly two years.
It is so sad that the military don’t send a small team of controllers and pilots overseas to look at how similar air space is controlled. Imagine a review which looked at how these enlightened procedures work overseas and looked at the safety implications and whether we could import some of the ideas to Australia. Generally speaking when I have been held it is obvious that it is because of some archaic procedure designed in the 1950’s and not for any real safety reasons. This has been confirmed by professional air traffic controllers when I have discussed it with them.
We wanted to create a local rule whereby we could just pass traffic (on the grounds that before the IFR acft hits the chopper - he would have already hit the treetops/ pwr lines!) This was rejected by a pilot (most agreed, but there was one dissenting squadron).
Here is a classic example, it looks as if the experienced and professional air traffic controllers wanted to bring in a local procedure that would facilitate movement of traffic and make it more similar to what happens overseas and “a pilot" was able to stop this from happening. It reminds me of the situation with the victor lane over a decade ago, where one pilot managed to stop its introduction for nearly two years.
It is so sad that the military don’t send a small team of controllers and pilots overseas to look at how similar air space is controlled. Imagine a review which looked at how these enlightened procedures work overseas and looked at the safety implications and whether we could import some of the ideas to Australia. Generally speaking when I have been held it is obvious that it is because of some archaic procedure designed in the 1950’s and not for any real safety reasons. This has been confirmed by professional air traffic controllers when I have discussed it with them.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that a positive or negative input?
Two individuals come up in a rather polite weekend exchange and comment on some trouble they have around Amberly and Willy. The abuse, whilst ever so politely put, has started.
Thanks RAAFSA for a good response. Your plea for openness and discussion about how rules, regulations and procedures are applied around military controlled airspace is well made. Your point that you and many others are simply doing the best you can is appreciated.
Back to you sms777, you are obviously talking about an occassional military airspace transit clearance? With that in mind, your responses are also in context and respectful
Having raised the topic with Jabawocky off line, I think the discussion needs to be more about our Australian airspace and how we use it. Hopefully, no-one will argue that we have the best flying conditions in the world? With that accepted, why do we have such draconian rules, regulations and procedures? The "it's all about safety" cry does not stand up to scrutiny. Despite our desire to win at everything, in the sport of life our aviation safety record is at least as likely to relate to excellent flying conditions as it does to rules, regulations and procedures.
We have several large volumes of rules and regulations applying to pilot's/airspace users committing aviation in Australia.
My point is that the system has become over complicated.
This complication does not make aviation safer or easier. The application of the rules of the air should be something inherently simple and easy to remember.
The message is simple. Several other countries (by no means all) apply their rules and regulations in a way that is much more inclusive of all airpace users than we do in Australia. Our ATC, both civil and military, may well be doing the best they can, but we still need an unemotive debate about airspace management without everyone falling on their knives?
This is not about how easy it is to fly up a transit lane through the Willy restricted area, or how long you may or may not be held whilst an F111 does a tactical join at Amberly. It is about why the best radar operators in the country controlling the most manoeuvrable aircraft in the country need exlusive use of such a large chunk of airspace? No-one seems to want to take responsibility for look out anymore, or for the provision of such services as flight and radar information, or radar advisory traffic avoidance.
Up and down the east coast of Australia in particular we have superb radar coverage. Why don't radar agencies simply provide information or advisory services based on verbal agreements with the pilots whether inside or outside controlled airspace. I have occassionally seen and heard it done west of Sydney, so it must be possible. The ATC obligation to actual separation could be less, but all pilots would receive better information and a broader picture instead of just the few who actually want to be controlled.
A few revised procedures, and a little less misplaced anxiety would make for a lot more freedom of the air. There is a huge amount to discuss. Maybe our separation standards are too high? Maybe most unarmed aerial combat training could be taken out of a restricted area and get done OCTA (like they do in the UK)? Maybe RPT could be more constrained within specific narrow airways for their protection and the size of their receiving airport control zones could be shrunk (like they do in Europe)?
All just thoughts based on my point that our system has become over complicated. I am not saying anyone else is necessarily better, just that we could do what we want better because we have the best flying conditions in the world. Personally, I think the restricted areas and controlled airspace in Australia are way bigger than they really need to be, especially up the eastern seaboard.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing to remember is that it's not '1950's procedures' that can cause delays, it is that restricted airspace is Class C and therefore separation as per the rule book apply. No getting around it with funky copied procedures from different countries. The definition of Class C, or a reclassification, would have to change first. You can't work backwards on this one.
Cheers,
NFR.
Cheers,
NFR.
No Further Requirements,
You state:
The point I have been making for over a decade. The Australian procedures in Class C are based on something set in 1950 – probably before radar even existed.
In North America, not just the USA but also in Canada, the procedures in Class C are quite different to what we use here. Of course, it will be claimed that ours are “ICAO”. In that case, the US and Canada provide a different service to that required by ICAO. I once heard that the FAA was quite proud to have more notified differences to ICAO than virtually any other country in the world. Many aviators in the USA see ICAO as some form of system designed for third world countries such as Africa and not an organisation that should be followed where you need to allocate your safety dollars most effectively.
You state:
“it is that restricted airspace is Class C and therefore separation as per the rule book apply.”
In North America, not just the USA but also in Canada, the procedures in Class C are quite different to what we use here. Of course, it will be claimed that ours are “ICAO”. In that case, the US and Canada provide a different service to that required by ICAO. I once heard that the FAA was quite proud to have more notified differences to ICAO than virtually any other country in the world. Many aviators in the USA see ICAO as some form of system designed for third world countries such as Africa and not an organisation that should be followed where you need to allocate your safety dollars most effectively.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, are you saying that the USA does things their own way to suit their unique circumstances and doesn't follow other country's procedures? Hmmmmm.....
I still don't accept that by providing specific example of people getting delayed and going on about 'it's the controllers making it difficult - they won't change their practices' helps anyone.
Imagine you bought a 747, and then circled around a yelling at the marshaller at a heliport to hurry up and provide a landing area for your jet. I'm sure he'd love to have a 10,000ft runway, but there isn't one yet and yelling at the marshaller is not going to achieve anything.
Same with this - controllers are not opposed to change. What we are opposed to is quickly implemented changes without proper resources which jeopardises our ability to safely do our job. You can't just reclassify all the airspace to a lower level without first providing the equipment, and more importantly, the people, to do the job.
Dick - what is different in Class C in North America versus Australia? I am genuinely interested.
Cheers,
NFR.
I still don't accept that by providing specific example of people getting delayed and going on about 'it's the controllers making it difficult - they won't change their practices' helps anyone.
Imagine you bought a 747, and then circled around a yelling at the marshaller at a heliport to hurry up and provide a landing area for your jet. I'm sure he'd love to have a 10,000ft runway, but there isn't one yet and yelling at the marshaller is not going to achieve anything.
Same with this - controllers are not opposed to change. What we are opposed to is quickly implemented changes without proper resources which jeopardises our ability to safely do our job. You can't just reclassify all the airspace to a lower level without first providing the equipment, and more importantly, the people, to do the job.
Dick - what is different in Class C in North America versus Australia? I am genuinely interested.
Cheers,
NFR.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Already used in Australia for opposite direction definite passing.
Under what circumstances are there procedures used and what is the standard? Between which categories of aircraft?
Under what circumstances are there procedures used and what is the standard? Between which categories of aircraft?
Surely you must know the answer to this.
The main point is that by harmonising with the North American practice, where our radar will allow, there will be less holding and diversion for VFR traffic.
The main point is that by harmonising with the North American practice, where our radar will allow, there will be less holding and diversion for VFR traffic.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I knew Dick I would not be asking. I'd like you to tell me. You can't just throw a few phrases in you have heard from the States without knowing where and when they can be applied.
I'm all for change if it is an improvement and it can be implemented safely and within a framework of documented regulations. You can't just make up rules, like the US way of vectoring and separating IFR traffic in Class G. Bastardising any system is setting yourself up for failure.
I'm all for change if it is an improvement and it can be implemented safely and within a framework of documented regulations. You can't just make up rules, like the US way of vectoring and separating IFR traffic in Class G. Bastardising any system is setting yourself up for failure.
Gentleman!
I do admit that i am an occassional military airspace user and i am sure it is us that Jabawocky targeted with his post. I have been in the game for 20 years now and even as a student pilot i have never encountered any difficulties obtaining clearence to transit.
Do you know why?...
Because i respect the system that has been working for me, i have nice manners, fly by the book and most importantly.... I do not rock the boat!...
Unlike certain individuals comparing our system with UK/USA and constantly on the forum complaining because get held up for obvious reasons.
I do not give a rats @ss about the UK/US system because i am an Australian pilot flying in Australian airspace and like many others proven in their previous posts...it has been working for us.
I know Mr Smith would like to change all that overnight and with all respect it is not going to happen without compromising safety
I do admit that i am an occassional military airspace user and i am sure it is us that Jabawocky targeted with his post. I have been in the game for 20 years now and even as a student pilot i have never encountered any difficulties obtaining clearence to transit.
Do you know why?...
Because i respect the system that has been working for me, i have nice manners, fly by the book and most importantly.... I do not rock the boat!...
Unlike certain individuals comparing our system with UK/USA and constantly on the forum complaining because get held up for obvious reasons.
I do not give a rats @ss about the UK/US system because i am an Australian pilot flying in Australian airspace and like many others proven in their previous posts...it has been working for us.
I know Mr Smith would like to change all that overnight and with all respect it is not going to happen without compromising safety
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sms777
Earlier I said
In my explanation to you I talked about hijackers and now you are doing it with emotive talk.
Good for you
I think Jabawocky was right to get the conversation going. You have a view everything is going well, others don't.
Whilst a very honest perspective, you are clearly quite blinkered and you leave us in no doubt that you are uncomfortable with the thought things might change.
In my experience, fear of change and quiet complacency are amongst the most dangerous of traits for a pilot to admit to, especially when voiced in the name of safety. You may have other issues to bring up so killing the discussion now serves no purpose. Please may you enjoy your occasional military airspace transits, but let the conversation continue without inflamatory comment.
Earlier I said
it begins
Because i respect the system that has been working for me, i have nice manners, fly by the book and most importantly.... I do not rock the boat!...
I think Jabawocky was right to get the conversation going. You have a view everything is going well, others don't.
I do not give a rats @ss about the UK/US system because i am an Australian pilot flying in Australian airspace and like many others proven in their previous posts...it has been working for us.
In my experience, fear of change and quiet complacency are amongst the most dangerous of traits for a pilot to admit to, especially when voiced in the name of safety. You may have other issues to bring up so killing the discussion now serves no purpose. Please may you enjoy your occasional military airspace transits, but let the conversation continue without inflamatory comment.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
DBTW has me thinking here.
I just looked at my Flight Planning software and at a map of Oz with all the R space drawn in.
Crikey there is a lot of real estate covered. Sure some is out to sea and to FL600 but there is a lot of low level and the most cluttered is around Sydney.
I think he has a point about size of MIL airspace. Now I gather nobody complains much about Woomera (well not the mods these days
).
Do those who don't really have any issues and posted above think it could be improved, sizes heights or geographical points freed up for light GA to use with less restriction?
Has anyone done a study on this? Maybe the MIL zones could be improved also at the same time. Might have multiple benefits.
J
I just looked at my Flight Planning software and at a map of Oz with all the R space drawn in.
Crikey there is a lot of real estate covered. Sure some is out to sea and to FL600 but there is a lot of low level and the most cluttered is around Sydney.
I think he has a point about size of MIL airspace. Now I gather nobody complains much about Woomera (well not the mods these days
).Do those who don't really have any issues and posted above think it could be improved, sizes heights or geographical points freed up for light GA to use with less restriction?
Has anyone done a study on this? Maybe the MIL zones could be improved also at the same time. Might have multiple benefits.
J
Last edited by Jabawocky; 24th Nov 2008 at 20:46.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
clarification
Sorry folks, I know my last post was way too long, but just want to clarify the following response:
Quote: (mine)
We wanted to create a local rule whereby we could just pass traffic (on the grounds that before the IFR acft hits the chopper - he would have already hit the treetops/ pwr lines!) This was rejected by a pilot (most agreed, but there was one dissenting squadron).
Just wanted to point out that it was not "those in authority" in the military that rejected the reduced sep agreement. Management both at base and wing level supported it. It was just a pilot who felt that safety would be compromised if he was afforded less than full IFR sep.
As he was the only dissenter, I'm still hoping to talk him round and prove my point that he is in more danger from the trees than the chopper, but, at the end of the day, he's the one in the danger zone and I'm in the comfy chair providing a service - so he wins. (And btw it wasn't one of the AMB based squadrons dissenting, they were quite supportive).
Back to the thread topic, my experience has been that VFR transits through mil airspace (DN, TL, RIC, AMB) are facilitated wherever possible with minimum disruption. We do have to prioritise IAW local procedures and some mil flying activity requires exclusive use (not normal training, IAPPs etc - but the tactical stuff) because, frankly, the pilot workload is high enough without them having to "see or be hit" or comply with further restrictions to avoid an incident.
I was lucky enough to get a jolly in a hornet a couple of years ago ( went supersonic, practiced avoiding and engaging manouvres and went low level - 250ft - "croc spotting") and it really opened my eyes to the physical and mental demands the pilots face. I could barely keep up with instructions being issued and I didn't have to also keep us airborne at the same time! So trust me, some times, you just have to go around, over, under or wait to let these guys learn/practise their thing.
Quote: (mine)
We wanted to create a local rule whereby we could just pass traffic (on the grounds that before the IFR acft hits the chopper - he would have already hit the treetops/ pwr lines!) This was rejected by a pilot (most agreed, but there was one dissenting squadron).
(response to above) I have spoken to many military air traffic controllers about the enlightened procedures which take place in the UK, Canada and the USA, most would like to bring those procedures in, however they tell me that the total resistance to change and concrete mindedness of those in authority stop this from happening.
As he was the only dissenter, I'm still hoping to talk him round and prove my point that he is in more danger from the trees than the chopper, but, at the end of the day, he's the one in the danger zone and I'm in the comfy chair providing a service - so he wins. (And btw it wasn't one of the AMB based squadrons dissenting, they were quite supportive).
Back to the thread topic, my experience has been that VFR transits through mil airspace (DN, TL, RIC, AMB) are facilitated wherever possible with minimum disruption. We do have to prioritise IAW local procedures and some mil flying activity requires exclusive use (not normal training, IAPPs etc - but the tactical stuff) because, frankly, the pilot workload is high enough without them having to "see or be hit" or comply with further restrictions to avoid an incident.
I was lucky enough to get a jolly in a hornet a couple of years ago ( went supersonic, practiced avoiding and engaging manouvres and went low level - 250ft - "croc spotting") and it really opened my eyes to the physical and mental demands the pilots face. I could barely keep up with instructions being issued and I didn't have to also keep us airborne at the same time! So trust me, some times, you just have to go around, over, under or wait to let these guys learn/practise their thing.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never had a problem with Willy airspace. Got held once when Kevin Rudd was a teenager, but that was it. The Gloucester route is only for good weather days, but then the entire section over land is only good in good weather. If the weather is bad on the coast, via Scone is the only way to go north.
The US has been quoted many times. Try flying over the islands west of LA and in the restricted area near Yuma, AZ.
The US has been quoted many times. Try flying over the islands west of LA and in the restricted area near Yuma, AZ.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we discount recovery of a MayDay aircraft, since 1965 I've rarely had a problem transiting Willy. However, the consistent theme would appear to be that they do Mil ATCO training there and if one has a hassle, it's usually from one who sounds like it's his first day on the job. You get the greatest flexibility at places like AMB and TN where the TWR ATCO is usually both TWR and APP rated with a radar display [and may be doing both jobs.]
Otherwise, it's fine.
G'day
Otherwise, it's fine.
G'day