RAAF Training at East Sale?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Sand Dune,
The local politicians down in Sale have been talking this up like it's already theirs. They have been spruiking a lot of garbage about how the weather in Sale is superior to Tamworth's. You can do a direct comparison on the BOM website , and it proves Tamworth is less cloudier, less windier and less rainier in every single month.
The ESL airspace and ILS will become totally maxed. How will ATC handle all the extra traffic? I've heard that BFTS is the busiest unit in the RAAF.
I think those companies are trying to get their foot in the door at WSL on the assumption that 5428 will be setting up at ESL. A very dangerous (and expensive) assumption, because there are no guarantees about what 5428 will look like and where it will end up.
East Sale - Very good for CFS, but totally inappropriate for BFTS.
The local politicians down in Sale have been talking this up like it's already theirs. They have been spruiking a lot of garbage about how the weather in Sale is superior to Tamworth's. You can do a direct comparison on the BOM website , and it proves Tamworth is less cloudier, less windier and less rainier in every single month.
The ESL airspace and ILS will become totally maxed. How will ATC handle all the extra traffic? I've heard that BFTS is the busiest unit in the RAAF.
I think those companies are trying to get their foot in the door at WSL on the assumption that 5428 will be setting up at ESL. A very dangerous (and expensive) assumption, because there are no guarantees about what 5428 will look like and where it will end up.
East Sale - Very good for CFS, but totally inappropriate for BFTS.
I don't think you can say Sale's totally inappropriate for BFTS - as someone stated previously, Point Cook did the job for a long time and it's no better than Sale Wx wise.
There's a heap of airspace - it would just need to be managed better, and using West Sale for BFTS circuit ops would work.
Having said that, I don't particularly want to see BFTS move from where it is, but Sale could be made to work without too much drama, I think.
As SGT Schultz says, 'I know nothing', but from the rumour mill and what's in the Gippsland local papers, someone's pushing the Sale barrow pretty hard.
As I said before, though, Mareeba has to be the location of choice.
There's a heap of airspace - it would just need to be managed better, and using West Sale for BFTS circuit ops would work.
Having said that, I don't particularly want to see BFTS move from where it is, but Sale could be made to work without too much drama, I think.
As SGT Schultz says, 'I know nothing', but from the rumour mill and what's in the Gippsland local papers, someone's pushing the Sale barrow pretty hard.
As I said before, though, Mareeba has to be the location of choice.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point Cook weather
Point Cook did the job for a long time and it's no better than Sale Wx wise.
Having said all that, I believe the shift away from Point Cook also related to the giant wheel turning to the "we should only use one type for basic and advanced flying training" position, as it does every three decades or so. Unfortunately the plan didn't work for the same reasons it never works, and as an added disaster the turbo-prop protagonists managed to foist a basic trainer into the advanced flying training role!
(Now we suffer international derision with our publically funded, premier military formation display team whispering around in an unimpressive buzz box! I say bring back a jet!)In operating the PC9, originally envisaged as a CT4 replacement, I suppose the RAAF could have chosen Point Cook as the training base, but instead they kept Pearce. My guess is that decision was made due to better facilities, airspace and weather over west? And because more instructors wanted to go to Pearce, not Point Cook!
Read my earlier post on why Sale won't work. Combining the 2 existing schools in one base will add something like 40,000 more hours per year to an already busy base. Besides, last time I was there, the military ATC had manning problems and regular tower closures! It is a fact, Sale airspace will be seriously constrained by bringing in one additional school, let alone two.
Even geography works against Sale with mountains on one side and a cold sea on the other! You know our modern sky gods simply hate flying small aeroplanes over mountains and water?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh come on - does anyone really think the basing location of a unit is decided upon based on where the instructors want to go??? 
Get real folks - it's all political pork barrelling!
Whilst the weather at Pearce might be good, students are coming to 76 and OCU with little IFR experience, and the airspace sucks!
The RAAF would love to centralise all Hawk training at Willy - ONE maintenance organisation, ONE squadron, ONE HQ etc - it'd save squillions! But do you think the member/s for whatever seat Pearce is in will let 79 go without a fight? And yes, there are airspace issues at Willy too, and then there's the member/s for Willy who will no doubt be fielding the increase in noise complaints (just wait till the JSF arrives!!!).
The pork battle is going on with IBFT at the moment too, where all the local, state and federal politicos in Tamworth have got behind BAE's bid, while the local and state govts in VIC are supporting Boeing's, Raytheon's and Thales/FTA's bids at WSL!
The base in the most marginal seat will always win...
Get real folks - it's all political pork barrelling!
Whilst the weather at Pearce might be good, students are coming to 76 and OCU with little IFR experience, and the airspace sucks!
The RAAF would love to centralise all Hawk training at Willy - ONE maintenance organisation, ONE squadron, ONE HQ etc - it'd save squillions! But do you think the member/s for whatever seat Pearce is in will let 79 go without a fight? And yes, there are airspace issues at Willy too, and then there's the member/s for Willy who will no doubt be fielding the increase in noise complaints (just wait till the JSF arrives!!!).
The pork battle is going on with IBFT at the moment too, where all the local, state and federal politicos in Tamworth have got behind BAE's bid, while the local and state govts in VIC are supporting Boeing's, Raytheon's and Thales/FTA's bids at WSL!
The base in the most marginal seat will always win...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
79 to Willy?
The RAAF would love to centralise all Hawk training at Willy - ONE maintenance organisation, ONE squadron, ONE HQ etc - it'd save squillions!
Now please don't get to me on the Willy airspace not being big enough,
because it is probably the most inefficiently used airspace in the Southern Hemisphere, but high level bosses like Group Captains seem to get listened to when they speak... or is he a pork barrelling for both Pearce and Willy?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DBTW,
I think Foxtrot18 was referring to the airspace at Pearce being crap. He's right. There's just too much traffic with 79, 2FTS and the RSAF in the same tight wedge of airspace. It's only a matter of time before there's a midair.
Here's a thought: move BFTS to PEA and 2FTS to Tamworth! Tamworth has close to double PEA airspace. A slower BFTS type aircraft would be much more suited to the confined training areas at PEA.
As a QFI you could have a more desirable aircraft in a country town (2FTS at Tamworth), or a less desirable aircraft in a premier location (BFTS at PEA). You therefore wouldn't have everyone kicking and screaming to go to PEA (and stay there forever).
I think Foxtrot18 was referring to the airspace at Pearce being crap. He's right. There's just too much traffic with 79, 2FTS and the RSAF in the same tight wedge of airspace. It's only a matter of time before there's a midair.
Here's a thought: move BFTS to PEA and 2FTS to Tamworth! Tamworth has close to double PEA airspace. A slower BFTS type aircraft would be much more suited to the confined training areas at PEA.
As a QFI you could have a more desirable aircraft in a country town (2FTS at Tamworth), or a less desirable aircraft in a premier location (BFTS at PEA). You therefore wouldn't have everyone kicking and screaming to go to PEA (and stay there forever).
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DBTW
That is a view, FA18, although you need to have a chat with your 78 Wing boss. I am clearly not as close to the action as you are with a handle like yours, but Mr 78 Wing doesn't seem to share your opinion, and he says so in last month's Australian Aviation...he reckons another unit flying 3000 flight hours at either place will bulk out the airspace.
I can't and won't speak for the 78WG or any other boss, but believe me when I say he has some extremely good insights and ideas into future air combat training. I would suggest however he may have been quoting the current softly softly, easy does it company line rather than his personal opinion (which may or may not differ) in the article. I think you'd have to walk a long way to find a Group Captain who will go on the record with a personal opinion about any policy if it even slightly differs from that of AFHQ!
The 79/Pearce study was conducted by a couple of One-stars earlier this year with input not just from 78WG, but also from 76SQN, 81, & 82WGs, ACG, TFSPO, DMO, BAE and others, and the eventual recommendation will come from DCAF's office.
And while moving 79 to Willy would require some rejigging of the airspace as well as other on and off-base adjustments, nothing is an automatic deal-breaker! The hard part of upping the ante at Willy will be dealing with the locals re noise...
I think Foxtrot18 was referring to the airspace at Pearce being crap. He's right. There's just too much traffic with 79, 2FTS and the RSAF in the same tight wedge of airspace. It's only a matter of time before there's a midair.
Gliderboy, Merry Xmas to you too mate - Maroochy would also be a fine option - God knows why the Army didn't take it over Oakey when they had the choice. As for coming out of retirement, I'm as we speak working at a unit not a million miles from one of the ones being discussed in this very thread, who'd've thunk it eh!
DBTW, funny how things work out; as you may know, they were doing big runway works at Pt Cook in the late 80s to bring the PC9 there as the basic trainer (which is how come we got the fat tyres - to land on the parallel grass runways), with the ill-fated Wamira one of the other contenders. CT4s were to retire, Macchis were going to soldier on under the LOTEX program. A cunning plan, as Blackadder would say, but things sure didn't turn out as predicted. Maybe all training will be consolidated at Maroochy, stranger things have happened!
DBTW, funny how things work out; as you may know, they were doing big runway works at Pt Cook in the late 80s to bring the PC9 there as the basic trainer (which is how come we got the fat tyres - to land on the parallel grass runways), with the ill-fated Wamira one of the other contenders. CT4s were to retire, Macchis were going to soldier on under the LOTEX program. A cunning plan, as Blackadder would say, but things sure didn't turn out as predicted. Maybe all training will be consolidated at Maroochy, stranger things have happened!
It's only a matter of time before there's a midair.
@Roller Merlin:
now basketcase of Air5428 is such a quest
In the old days the CO or CFI had the power to suspend someone on a 'scrub ride'.
That sort of scrub mentality was common in RAAF flying training schools simply because no questions were asked and the student was thrown off the base back into civvy life within 48 hours of getting the chop. The fact the poor bastard may not have had a home to go back to was never considered.
I saw this at first hand on many occasions. And this casual attitude by RAAF instructors went completely un-challenged and it cost tax payers plenty. Many scrubbed students went on to make excellent airline pilots.
When I joined the RAAF as a trainee pilot we started at Point Cook. Among the flying instructors at that time were experienced former wartime pilots and three of these were hard-bitten screaming skulls whose reputation for scrubbing students was well known. In later years all three became DCA Examiners of Airmen. A few years back I met up with my former CO of Point Cook. He was a former Catalina pilot during the war and was shot down by the same Japanese units that devasted Pearl Harbour. He was 90 when we had coffee in Sydney together.
When I told him of the fearsome reputation three of his instructor staff had under his command at Point Cook, he was astonished and admitted he had no idea about their reputation. He thought all his instructors were fine gentlemen - after all he was "Sir" to them and treated him with the greatest respect. He was blind to their cruelties to students because no one talked about such things in the Officers Mess.
All instructors whether civilian or military must be reasonably accountable when it comes to teaching people to fly. Some should never be instructors. But I am all for a requirement to first warn students by whatever administrative means is deemed appropriate by the training agency, before a decision is taken to stop further flying training if a civilan flying school - or to scrub a military student. An instructor should not be God when it comes to accountability.
'Many scrubbed students went on to make excellent airline pilots.'
An instructor should not be God when it comes to accountability.
People out in the FEGs are wondering why the standard of graduate has dropped. People are failing conversions that they shouldn't be failing. I can say from experience that conducting IF remedial training in a level 5 sim is novel, but you shouldn't need to do it.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus, how right you are. Recently attended a reunion where a chap related his story of being scrubbed on his final handling test on a Vampire at Pearce for a less than pretty landing. Now who doesn't have one of those irrespective of experience. What cost that to the taxpayer?
To those who think that anyone could be scrubbed from RAAF Pilot Course in Phase 5 or even on wings test nowadays, without having a track record of poor performance and failures up to that point, you are mistaken. Those days are long gone.
These candidates always have a history indicating they would have difficulty passing operational conversions, but may have other circumstances and personal issues that COs consider are related, and so COs sometimes keep them on course in their interests and the possibility that they may improve. In many cases they do, but some get to the final month of course where their problems in areas like as weak multi-tasking, prioritisation and problem solving get fleshed out. Candidate performance is very carefully monitored nowadays and they have every access to remedial training, counseling, and redress avenues. Sometimes the candidates see their final chop ride in simple terms, such as crap landings, but invariably there were a whole gamet of things consistent with previous performance, they were not aware of in flight, that they should have been managing. An unfortunate cliche, but it is like giving them a longer rope for which to hang themselves.
These candidates always have a history indicating they would have difficulty passing operational conversions, but may have other circumstances and personal issues that COs consider are related, and so COs sometimes keep them on course in their interests and the possibility that they may improve. In many cases they do, but some get to the final month of course where their problems in areas like as weak multi-tasking, prioritisation and problem solving get fleshed out. Candidate performance is very carefully monitored nowadays and they have every access to remedial training, counseling, and redress avenues. Sometimes the candidates see their final chop ride in simple terms, such as crap landings, but invariably there were a whole gamet of things consistent with previous performance, they were not aware of in flight, that they should have been managing. An unfortunate cliche, but it is like giving them a longer rope for which to hang themselves.
Yes, the phrase Pearce is a place waiting for a mid air has been used a lot.
Yes, there has never been a mid air
Want to have a guess at how many near mid airs occur there and but for a few seconds in time, good airmanship and pure luck other times didn't happen?
Yes, there has never been a mid air
Want to have a guess at how many near mid airs occur there and but for a few seconds in time, good airmanship and pure luck other times didn't happen?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mid airs at Pearce!?
On the thread topic, it seems we are agreed Pearce has busy airspace with 2FTS, 79 Squadron and the RSAF flying training unit present. With this loading, and with Pearce being anecdotally "ripe for a mid air," then the question on sending all training to East Sale has been answered. It can't be done because there would be too many aircraft in the airspace thus making it unsafe to operate, especially with those vicious high mountains and the incredibly cold sea nearby!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: the fatigue curve
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little knowledge is dangerous
I'm a few years out of date on the sale issues.
However unless my current information feed is completely b/s I don't see how sale can't do the job with airspace.
There is approx 15-20 PC9's, less than 10 CT4's and less than 10 Kingairs operating fulltime from sale.
So the airspace "experts" are telling us that that current number of aircraft has already maxxed out the airspace which essentially consists of a 50NM ring around ESL. Sure there is water and mountains as a risk factor. Survival kits, rescue choppers and water exposure suits normally solve those problems of risk relatively easily.
Yep I agree Sale can't handle the extra workload of BFTS, there is no spare aerodromes for circuit work. Has someone blown up West sale, Bairnsdale, Yarram? Besides those councils wouldn't have been interested in the extra revenue from the extra movements caused by all the CT4 equivalents. And the runway works for a heavy trainer (a light aircraft) would have been way too much to spend if required
Yep I definitely agree with the airspace experts, compared to Pearce and Willy, Sale looks ways too overcrowded.
Now as to weather that's a different topic. Tamworth might not have the rain and cloud. However how much training is lost to hot weather, either from delayed flying or ineffective training due the student suffering heat stress.
Neither place is perfect.
How about traffic avoidance. The TCAD fitted to the current CT4's needs a radar to interrogate the transponders for the system to work. Tamworth doesn't have one so half the time the system is ineffective. Sale does have one (although it used to be u/s half the time) which would make the system work better. Tamworth used to do half of its training in airpace that anyone could drive through the middle of anyway.
Sarcasm, cynicism and facts aside
It will get decided by Politicians, absolutely nothing to do with which is better for the job.
However unless my current information feed is completely b/s I don't see how sale can't do the job with airspace.
There is approx 15-20 PC9's, less than 10 CT4's and less than 10 Kingairs operating fulltime from sale.
So the airspace "experts" are telling us that that current number of aircraft has already maxxed out the airspace which essentially consists of a 50NM ring around ESL. Sure there is water and mountains as a risk factor. Survival kits, rescue choppers and water exposure suits normally solve those problems of risk relatively easily.
Yep I agree Sale can't handle the extra workload of BFTS, there is no spare aerodromes for circuit work. Has someone blown up West sale, Bairnsdale, Yarram? Besides those councils wouldn't have been interested in the extra revenue from the extra movements caused by all the CT4 equivalents. And the runway works for a heavy trainer (a light aircraft) would have been way too much to spend if required
Yep I definitely agree with the airspace experts, compared to Pearce and Willy, Sale looks ways too overcrowded.
Now as to weather that's a different topic. Tamworth might not have the rain and cloud. However how much training is lost to hot weather, either from delayed flying or ineffective training due the student suffering heat stress.
Neither place is perfect.
How about traffic avoidance. The TCAD fitted to the current CT4's needs a radar to interrogate the transponders for the system to work. Tamworth doesn't have one so half the time the system is ineffective. Sale does have one (although it used to be u/s half the time) which would make the system work better. Tamworth used to do half of its training in airpace that anyone could drive through the middle of anyway.
Sarcasm, cynicism and facts aside
It will get decided by Politicians, absolutely nothing to do with which is better for the job.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarcasm and cynicism
Hi Truckmaster. Merry Christmas!! It has been a good debate so far.
It will be a political decision of course, and despite your vehemence, location will have everything to do with it.
If you want to talk politics, let's just agree the whole IBFTS fiasco (in allowing East Sale into the picture) is about being seen to enable a competing bid against the incumbent, and very little to do with any other of the various well made discussion points put forward in this thread.
Of course everybody understands a move of basing and re-equipment at BFTS as a 6 year interim measure, with no guarantee of any post 5428 work, will never be cost effective against an established supplier in a location with the overheads already largely covered.
It will be a political decision of course, and despite your vehemence, location will have everything to do with it.
If you want to talk politics, let's just agree the whole IBFTS fiasco (in allowing East Sale into the picture) is about being seen to enable a competing bid against the incumbent, and very little to do with any other of the various well made discussion points put forward in this thread.
Of course everybody understands a move of basing and re-equipment at BFTS as a 6 year interim measure, with no guarantee of any post 5428 work, will never be cost effective against an established supplier in a location with the overheads already largely covered.
Would just LOVE to know the names of those 3 who eventually joined DCA etc. Private post me if you wish. Probably flew with them at some time.