Clearances for VFR in ADF control zones
Sorry, but I couldn't let this one go un-challenged. In fact, I nearly fell off my bean bag when I read it ...
Dick said:
"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."
What the ... ? But Dick, you made us change to "Alphabet Airspace" to harmonise with ICAO !!!! Now you're telling us it was all hokum
Dick said:
"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."
What the ... ? But Dick, you made us change to "Alphabet Airspace" to harmonise with ICAO !!!! Now you're telling us it was all hokum
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
Fetaher #3
Thanks for a really good post, the training of ATCO's at Willy had never crossed my mind.
Now that I think of it, the only knockbacks of service I have ever had were quite obvious some poor bloke was being trained and under immense pressure and busy workload (BNE CEN out of TL).
The lady that was being trained at Maroochydore a year or two ago was another and she seemed to get up to speed rather well.
So maybe this is a good case for not training at Willytown, that is throwing them in the deep end. Is this where they get trained from woooo to gooo, or do they start out somewhere quiet?
J
Thanks for a really good post, the training of ATCO's at Willy had never crossed my mind.
Now that I think of it, the only knockbacks of service I have ever had were quite obvious some poor bloke was being trained and under immense pressure and busy workload (BNE CEN out of TL).
The lady that was being trained at Maroochydore a year or two ago was another and she seemed to get up to speed rather well.
So maybe this is a good case for not training at Willytown, that is throwing them in the deep end. Is this where they get trained from woooo to gooo, or do they start out somewhere quiet?
J
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabawocky - sorry, but they don't just "train" ATCO's at Williamtown.
On The Job Training (OJT) occurs at every location you mentioned - Willy, AMB, TN, Pearce etc
On The Job Training (OJT) occurs at every location you mentioned - Willy, AMB, TN, Pearce etc
We have actually come quite a long way, I remember in 1979 if you wanted to get a clearance for a VFR helicopter to transit the Richmond control zone you would actually have to phone first on a land line for approval.
One day I was flying my aircraft and decided to divert to John Singleton’s horse stud, which was on the Nepean River just inside the Richmond zone. I called up the tower and asked if I could have a clearance and explained that this was a flight plan change. The controller explained that there was simply no way he could give the clearance by radio and that I would have to telephone. I then said, “well do you object if I land here at a homestead on the other side of the Nepean River and phone from there”, he said “no”, duly I made the phone call and got the clearance to fly in. I then managed to purchase one of the first brief case sized “007” mobile phones and put it in the helicopter, I was then able to phone up by telephone to get a clearance through the zone. Within months they realised I had outfoxed them and decided that you could actually call by radio in future to get a clearance. At last we were moving into the 19th Century.
One day I was flying my aircraft and decided to divert to John Singleton’s horse stud, which was on the Nepean River just inside the Richmond zone. I called up the tower and asked if I could have a clearance and explained that this was a flight plan change. The controller explained that there was simply no way he could give the clearance by radio and that I would have to telephone. I then said, “well do you object if I land here at a homestead on the other side of the Nepean River and phone from there”, he said “no”, duly I made the phone call and got the clearance to fly in. I then managed to purchase one of the first brief case sized “007” mobile phones and put it in the helicopter, I was then able to phone up by telephone to get a clearance through the zone. Within months they realised I had outfoxed them and decided that you could actually call by radio in future to get a clearance. At last we were moving into the 19th Century.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the perceived issues in dealing with the military is that when everything is peaceful, military activities appear wasteful. In times of war, they are invaluable. In my mind, the RAAF deserves every bit of Williamtown and neighbouring airspace and I'm content to put up with the very, very isolated inconvenience for the knowledge of having a highly trained and very capable air force at the ready.
Dick, do you feel it necessary to "outfox" everyone? Is it all part of some big competition with you to see who's the best or who has the most? I wouldn't have thought making a phone call was in any way combative, but what would I know. It seems like all that had to be done was for the controllers/regulators to be shown that incumbent laws were outdated (as is occurring more and more with advances in technology) and they were content to change. In many cases, the people doing the job know that the pertinent laws are outdated. They are just waiting for the prod to motivate the change.
Dick, do you feel it necessary to "outfox" everyone? Is it all part of some big competition with you to see who's the best or who has the most? I wouldn't have thought making a phone call was in any way combative, but what would I know. It seems like all that had to be done was for the controllers/regulators to be shown that incumbent laws were outdated (as is occurring more and more with advances in technology) and they were content to change. In many cases, the people doing the job know that the pertinent laws are outdated. They are just waiting for the prod to motivate the change.
Last edited by Lodown; 24th Nov 2008 at 23:39.
DBTW
I am not trying to hijack your thread...(it is becoming your thread is not it?)
Jaba asked a simple and valid question and like i said earlier only certain individuals having difficulties transiting through Military Zones and these individuals screaming about instant changes soon as they become inconvenienced.
I am not afraid or against any changes as long as they are implemented gradually, educated correctly and in the benefit of the aviation community.
If you want to bring in rules from the US than first prove that it will work in Australia and it will be better than the current ones...
I do agree that there are way too many oversized military airspace in the country but it is a big country and it is only really incovenience on the east cost due to higher volume of civil traffic.
To get back on the thread....
I never had problems transiting through ADF's VFR or IFR because i follow rules...current ones...that is.
Jaba asked a simple and valid question and like i said earlier only certain individuals having difficulties transiting through Military Zones and these individuals screaming about instant changes soon as they become inconvenienced.
I am not afraid or against any changes as long as they are implemented gradually, educated correctly and in the benefit of the aviation community.
If you want to bring in rules from the US than first prove that it will work in Australia and it will be better than the current ones...
I do agree that there are way too many oversized military airspace in the country but it is a big country and it is only really incovenience on the east cost due to higher volume of civil traffic.
To get back on the thread....
I never had problems transiting through ADF's VFR or IFR because i follow rules...current ones...that is.
No Further Requirements, in relation to “green in between” and “target resolution” you state:
Looking at the document produced by CASA called “Provision of reduced separation minima between VFR and IFR aircraft”, it appears that in the USA, in Class C airspace there are no limitations for target resolution in relation to the aircraft category.
For Class B, target resolution can be used for “aircraft which weigh 19,000 pounds or less.” It says later (re Class B) that aircraft “which weigh more than 19,000 pounds and turbojets” are separated by 1.5 miles of lateral separation, or 500 feet vertical separation, or visual separation.
Under what circumstances are these procedures used and what is the standard? Between which categories of aircraft?
For Class B, target resolution can be used for “aircraft which weigh 19,000 pounds or less.” It says later (re Class B) that aircraft “which weigh more than 19,000 pounds and turbojets” are separated by 1.5 miles of lateral separation, or 500 feet vertical separation, or visual separation.
Dick,
Unfortunately, any reduction in separation standards would make the Radar Scope Scale issue ... even more of a problem ... and would result in your scenario becoming even less likely to come to fruition.
Unfortunately, any reduction in separation standards would make the Radar Scope Scale issue ... even more of a problem ... and would result in your scenario becoming even less likely to come to fruition.
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
Folks,
Thanks for a very productive and worthwhile thread so far.
Aside from redesigning airspace seperation standards and other issues that creep into these threads, is there anyone else interested in being involved in having discussions with those responsible about making some proactive changes around MIL controlled fields. If so PM me.
Seems to me that Willy might be one to look at closer, but maybe identify which need some and which do not.
Maybe Dick or someone here could open the doors for a few of us to put a case forward to those who can make change happen. I am not qualified or well connected enough to do it but I am sure some here will be.
J
OK Tid.... gotya.
Thanks for a very productive and worthwhile thread so far.
Aside from redesigning airspace seperation standards and other issues that creep into these threads, is there anyone else interested in being involved in having discussions with those responsible about making some proactive changes around MIL controlled fields. If so PM me.
Seems to me that Willy might be one to look at closer, but maybe identify which need some and which do not.
Maybe Dick or someone here could open the doors for a few of us to put a case forward to those who can make change happen. I am not qualified or well connected enough to do it but I am sure some here will be.
J
OK Tid.... gotya.
Last edited by Jabawocky; 25th Nov 2008 at 04:29.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Oztraylia
Age: 53
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaba,
Not sure such discussions would result in much because the military operate to the same standards as the civvies. Although it seems to me (I am now a civvie controller having been a military controller in a few of the areas mentioned in this thread) the military stick to the rules far more rigidly. They are far less likely to use the (never hit in a pink fit standard).
Maybe I'm way off beam.
Cheers
FGS
Not sure such discussions would result in much because the military operate to the same standards as the civvies. Although it seems to me (I am now a civvie controller having been a military controller in a few of the areas mentioned in this thread) the military stick to the rules far more rigidly. They are far less likely to use the (never hit in a pink fit standard).
Maybe I'm way off beam.
Cheers
FGS
I cant remember having any problem in 20 years getting through willy, Richmnd or Nowra zones.
Dick Smith does have some valid points as does the others. brings back the memory of the old joke about the instruction manual for a hammer writen by 2 different groups. The professionals manual hd 2 instrucions. 1 Hit nail. 2 Dont hit thumb. The beuracrats manual was over 200 pages.
Dick Smith does have some valid points as does the others. brings back the memory of the old joke about the instruction manual for a hammer writen by 2 different groups. The professionals manual hd 2 instrucions. 1 Hit nail. 2 Dont hit thumb. The beuracrats manual was over 200 pages.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAAFASA, the F111's were coming in from the east. I was coming from the north west to the north, I was told to track to the south of AMB and hold at Rosebank, I think (I can't be bothered looking it up at the moment). The F111's then came from the east to about two miles north of AMB, did a beat up (Is that what you call a "Tactical" approach?) then broke and did a less than two mile circuit. My positiom at 10 miles north would have in no way clashed with them. It was cavok. My working position at ten miles north and below five hundred agl would have been further away than the point they told me to hold. It doesn't make sense but military airspace is like CASA, it doesn't have to, tough titty.
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
Not sure I get your point there FGS.
I do not think seperation standards or other standards need to change at all. More likley the number of and sizes and shapes of the MIL CTA.
I have had some info via PM's that have come from retired fighter pilots making suggestions that might help. Maybe you can help too. I can not take this all the way but I am interested in collecting a few positive minded folk who can.
It may be a matter of changing a few shapes and the step heights just a bit and fewer zones, maybe joining up some i.e R111A,B,C being just R111 (just a numerical example).
I am surprised there have been no students and newbies post their honest thoughts here. If there are some reading this, speak up and don't be afraid to say something dumb..... I do enough of that for all of you!
J
I do not think seperation standards or other standards need to change at all. More likley the number of and sizes and shapes of the MIL CTA.
I have had some info via PM's that have come from retired fighter pilots making suggestions that might help. Maybe you can help too. I can not take this all the way but I am interested in collecting a few positive minded folk who can.
It may be a matter of changing a few shapes and the step heights just a bit and fewer zones, maybe joining up some i.e R111A,B,C being just R111 (just a numerical example).
I am surprised there have been no students and newbies post their honest thoughts here. If there are some reading this, speak up and don't be afraid to say something dumb..... I do enough of that for all of you!
J
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Oztraylia
Age: 53
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, OK I see. Some change to dimensions and designations could help in some circumstances. Might be worth chasing up. I know there are some mighty big ones (eg: Townsville Restricted areas) that are rarely used to the full area and since they have radar coverage there some scaling down of the R area may be achievable. I think that this is an altogether different argument than entering military C class areas. These aircraft would be treated no differently than in any other C class environment. Maybe some confusion could result with a lot of D class around as well.
Cheers
FGS
Cheers
FGS
Last edited by ForGreaterSafety; 25th Nov 2008 at 09:43. Reason: Add some comments
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAAFASA, the F111's were coming in from the east. I was coming from the north west to the north, I was told to track to the south of AMB and hold at Rosebank, I think (I can't be bothered looking it up at the moment). The F111's then came from the east to about two miles north of AMB, did a beat up (Is that what you call a "Tactical" approach?) then broke and did a less than two mile circuit. My positiom at 10 miles north would have in no way clashed with them. It was cavok. My working position at ten miles north and below five hundred agl would have been further away than the point they told me to hold. It doesn't make sense but military airspace is like CASA, it doesn't have to, tough titty.
Thanks SuperCecil. Holding at Rosewood (you were so close
) is commonly used as it provides a procedural standard in case radar sep is not suitable (low level, intermittent returns etc). It also gives tower a fighting chance of being able to sight acft (through binos unless you're a C17, of course) to minimise the sep standard required. If you and the piggies were the only acft in the airspace at the time, it does sound like your ops would have worked. Again, all I can say is that the pigs may have requested more airspace than they actually used, or the controllers may have misunderstood their, or your, request and erred on the side of safety.
If it was recent, give me a date and time and I'll pull the audio and radar tapes and have a more exact look at it. If it was a while ago the tapes will be gone but next time something like this happens to you just give us a call on the next working day and we will be able to view the tapes and either justify the controllers actions or counsel them to ensure a better service next time. Cheers.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....and that's what it's all about - teamwork. No one is out to get one another (I think). This thread is a very good one indeed.
On the subject of R areas and numbering, I think they are split up for ease of assigning them as operating areas for aircraft inside them.
Dick - Thanks for the info re 'green between'. On a lot of current sectors, that would be 5NM anyway by the time you got the screen resolution. Smaller sectors would help, and that means more people. Not going to happen for a while I would say.
Cheers,
NFR.
On the subject of R areas and numbering, I think they are split up for ease of assigning them as operating areas for aircraft inside them.
Dick - Thanks for the info re 'green between'. On a lot of current sectors, that would be 5NM anyway by the time you got the screen resolution. Smaller sectors would help, and that means more people. Not going to happen for a while I would say.
Cheers,
NFR.
