Williamtown Procedures

[The Chaser]

ppppppfffffffffffffff .....

Those Sea Sprite's really did stink

[scran]

Max1 - yes, Tower did own all the airspace at the time. Dick has been told that SEVERAL times





Don't confuse Dick with facts - remember - the concrete has set!!!


WHo has the closed mind now?

[C-change]

The Chaser,

Your posts are as funny as all F#%@, LMAO. Very good.

Dick,

Mate, why is it, that you get stuck into others about not answering your questions but you refuse to answer any of mine?

I have tried to explain things to you, supplied info about radars and even asked you for further explanations on your theories, in an attempt to see if it was a worthwhile propostion, but get nothing in return. Why?

I'll try again;

1. On the day in question, did you at anytime ask for a higher level or direct to the OH ? If not, then why not ?

2. Can you please explain exactly how the TWR having the airspace (and they did on this day) will stop you from being held in future ? Nb: I have worked there so don't give some made up BS explanation please.

3. If the Aus military is so backward, why is the US FAA installing the same radar and system the ADF has used for ten years and adopting the same ICAO standards?

4. Why won't you open your mind and listen to the people that use the equipment day in day out ? We are not on here telling you how to operate your A109.

And;

As I pointed out, it was in 1983 when flying around the world in my helicopter that I was first held at Williamtown – I think it was for about ten minutes orbiting at Nobby’s.

In my whole world flight of some 350 hours, the only other time I was held was by the military going into Darwin.

That just shows the ADF provide a consistent, standardised service around the country

PS, ADF members are less likely to come on here and engage with you, as it will more often than not, end their employment.

[le Pingouin]

Excellent ASCII Chaser

Must.....Not......Crack......Jokes....... Oh damn.

[le Pingouin]

Hey Jack, was that a holiday snap of you?

[The Chaser]

Bwahahahahaha

... I reckon you might be right about the holiday snap

[NTZ]

Dick,

Your lack of knowledge is letting you down.

from what you are telling me the military has gone backwards

If by "adopting proven overseas equipment", means going backwards, then yes.

By military, I'm assuming you only mean Military ATC, because the military employs a few other groups of people to watch aircraft on RADAR using different systems. I'm just trying to cut off that "we're screwed when the war starts" argument.

In which case, Military ATC systems have a few civil requirements to meet before they will be permitted to separate civil aircraft. Again, you target military, but this isn't an exclusively military problem.

Is there a personal issue there Dick?

why not give the Tower some extra Airspace like Canberra

The tower cannot see aircraft in the corridor apart from a few gaps in the dunes, so they would have to predominantly use the RADAR, just like the Approach Controller. It's a benefit vs workload balance, and considering that the Tower Controller's job is focussed on circuit traffic management, approach is usually the best choice.

What I am told, of course, is that when they have lots of traffic – say, in 1986 when the Hornet arrived – that the military controllers can bend the rules, break the regulations, and handle a lot of traffic safely.

First. It isn't 1986 and despite your claims, ATC has evolved - remarkably, managing to ditch a few bad habits along with picking up some more along the way. This job is barely recognisable from the one it was ten years ago.

Second, Bend and break rules - sure it happens, but not without consequences. You take the risks into your own hands, you are personally responsible. Also, one or two controllers doing so doesn't make it a procedure, nor right for that matter. It's exactly the same as flying.

Third, there are procedures that relax some of the standards/restrictions for military aircraft, but these do not apply to civil aircraft. I'm pretty sure that this was stated earlier in the thread.

Fourth, 'hearsay' isn't used in court for a reason. You berate us for anonymity but hide behind a mysterious third person to mitigate your part in the statement should it be found to be inaccurate.

A final question - I know it was a few years ago, but do you actually know for certain which aircraft it was that you held for or is it just an assumption? Surely you can see why I need to ask this one.

[Dick Smith]

Once again for all to hear - the Tower did not "own" the airspace on that day or any day.

The FAA controllers I have spoken to say their Class C would not be able to be operated efficiently if the tower did not own the airspace to the zone boundary at 5 miles.

Why shoud it be any different here?

The US has both target resolution and tower airspace - we have neither.

Why are we so different?

Because change is resisted and in some places tower controllers are looked down upon by radar controllers and that can result in the tower controllers not being given the extra airspace and responsibility that could facilitate efficient operations.

[NTZ]

The US has both target resolution and tower airspace - we have neither.

What do you mean neither? Willy Tower has airspace - 5NM up to the coast (incidentally, stopping at the coast because of the Coastal Corridor). The only time they don't is in IMC.

It's only the major airports where the tower doesn't routinely have airspace.

Have I misunderstood the statement?

[scran]

Dick,

I've done two tours of Willy as a controller, been rated in every control position there.

If, as you state, you were on Tower frequency, then procedures have not changed and Tower controls (that is Dick - owns - you can't control airspace you don't own) the lane. They may have held you on advice/direction of Approach, but Tower "Owns" the airspace.

What time of day did this happen? Are you sure the one controller was not providing several services? Just because you are on Approach frequency doesn't mean you are talking to a controller who is NOT in the Tower. The callsign means nothing - even when doing Approach from the Tower - to an aircraft on Approach frequency you can call yourself Approach rather than Tower (circumstance dependent - damn - controllers being flexible - who'd have thought?).

How would you in your aircraft know that is not the case. Even back in 1976 when I started there, we had the ability to transfer the Approach Frequencies to the Tower position. When SURAD was installed in 1977 or 78, we then gained a radar screen in the Tower, and suitably rated controllers sould provide a radar service on either/or and indeed BOTH Tower and Approach frequency at the same time.


Come on Dick........

[ferris]

Here I was thinking that Dick had been arguing long and hard in the past to reduce the amount of airspace towers owned. Something about focusing on the runway, because that is where the risk is (or some such rubbish)? Now, you want a tower to have more airspace- because it's more efficient.

It's really lucky you aren't in a position to make decisions, Dick, because you would be reversing them every time you got held, or some other thing crops up that suits you personally. As evidenced on this thread, even when shown to be wrong, you can't accept it. Crash or crash thru lives on.

[Capn Bloggs]

in some places tower controllers are looked down upon by radar controllers and that can result in the tower controllers not being given the extra airspace and responsibility that could facilitate efficient operations.

That's exactly what I do with my FOs. Works a treat. Nothing ever goes wrong.

[C-change]

Once again for all to hear - the Tower did not "own" the airspace on that day or any day.

Thats not correct Dick, the controllers regularly "combine in the tower" at all bases, at different times and have done for many years. Willy combines on weekends, so does Townsville and every where else that I have worked.

Its called flexibility. It happens because the Approach cell is located with the Tower and Defence controllers still hold endorsements in both elements. Something AsA ditched years ago.

This one is a beauty;

Because change is resisted and in some places tower controllers are looked down upon by radar controllers and that can result in the tower controllers not being given the extra airspace and responsibility that could facilitate efficient operations.

What a load of CRAP. Doesnt happen when you all hold the same ratings. That really shows me that you have NFI about ATC and your above statement pisses me off. That would be like accusing you of being a lesser pilot, because you fly helicopters.

You still haven't answered any of my earlier questions !

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I 'lurved' my last excursion thru Willy airspace quite a 'few' years ago - the cnce read something like like 'proceed at a ht. NOT above 500ft, coastal along the beach, report Nobby's, report clear at Pt Stephens lighthouse.....

So....away we went...until the TWR asked us to report abm the field as he could not sight us, (PA-24) ....so we 'raised' ourselves above the sandhills so he could see us / we could see the field, and as soon as we said 'ABM the field' & he said OK, we descended again to cruise below (NOT above) 500ft and gave the seagulls heaps....

A Day to remember....

Cheers

(Troo Story....)

[Dick Smith]

Scran, I was not on the tower frequency and I have not said that. I was on the willy approach frequency and there was a separate tower controller on the tower frequency at the time.

C change, what separation standard do the tower controllers use between IFR and VFR when they are operating the entire combined airspace as you claim?

Why is it only in Canberra class C that the tower controls the airspace to the zone boundary? What advantages are there in this and why can't willy airspace copy this proven system?

Are the tower controllers at willy approved to use a radar separation standard when they are in the tower? Do they have the correct equipment to do this in the tower?

?

[peuce]

Dick,

I think all your questions (and more) have been adequately answered by the guys above.

You are now just prolonging the agony.

I think it's time to either withdraw gracefully or contact CASA and seek their support for your "proposal".

[C-change]

Here I go again, answering Dick's questions. Maybe one day he will answer mine. Here goes;

C change, what separation standard do the tower controllers use between IFR and VFR when they are operating the entire combined airspace as you claim?

First up its not a claim, its fact. They combine when traffic dictates, ie weekends, late at night. All bases do. The separation standards do not change whether combined or not. Class C is still class C. What changes is where the service is provided from. When combined, the Approach controller is in the Tower and provides both the Tower and Approach service, ie you are talking to the Approach controller when combined, who is also providing the Tower service. It is the Approach controller who "owns" all the airspace and they release portions (5nm, CTZ etc) to the Tower controller for aerodrome operations, as required. The tower controllers number one tool in separating planes (and helicopters) is the good old human eyeball, "Visual separation". Thats why I keep asking you, if you asked for direct tracking to the airfield, where the tower controller may have been able to visually separate you and the kingair.

It doesn't matter who is providing the service, the person cannot reduce the separation standard in place (3Nm or 1000', yes I know there are more) until both aircraft are sighted by Tower and on the same frequency, or its assigned to the pilot.

Why is it only in Canberra class C that the tower controls the airspace to the zone boundary? What advantages are there in this and why can't willy airspace copy this proven system?

Very difficult to answer as I have never worked there. Speculation only maybe, maybe it is easier for Tower, as there are plenty of well known landmarks to use as geograhpical features to separate with. Maybe its endorsements, qualifications, maybe Radar coverage is poor due to terrain? I don't know, you would have to ask them.

Are the tower controllers at willy approved to use a radar separation standard when they are in the tower?

That depends on the individual in question and their job. As I said 'Vis sep" is the primary tool for a Tower controller and they can use the radar for certain information. There are too many variables to list here, thats why we have MATS. Also remember the person doing Tower may not have done the "Radar" course yet, ie not employed as an Approach controller yet. They could have just arrived and still doing training and only completed Tower. Please note that they are all Air Traffic Controllers, who can be employed in either Tower or Approach, if they are qualified and endorsed. An example would be a PPL who only flies a R22. They are a qualified helicopter pilot, but not checked out on a gas turbine, or multi engine As355 etc. I'll leave it at that, as the variables are huge and I'll be here all day.

Do they have the correct equipment to do this in the tower?

The equipment is exactly the same, just a smaller screen in the Tower. If it was the same screen size as used in Approach room, it would block visibilty of the Runways/Airfield and that could be disastrous.

Because it is smaller, the decison to combine must be made carefully. It is harder to provide Approach on, due to the smaller size but its still safe. The sun on the screen is another factor and obviously traffic densities. You don't want an arrivals sequence of half a dozen planes or more, whilst trying run an aerodrome with 5 in the circuit. Its just dangerous and you can't watch them all.

This is not something new and has been done for many years. AsA also combine sectors when traffic dictate. Both organisations have a book full of rules and procedures for when to combine or not.

I hope that this has helped answer some of your questions. As its a beautiful sunny day, I'm off fishing before the wind gets up.

[scran]

Dick,

You continue to argue for arguments sake.

You have been proved factually wrong several times.

You refuse to acknowlegde when you have been proved wrong.

To answer your questions - yes, if suitably qualified, Tower controllers can use radar to provide separation. Yes they have the correct equipment - they have almost exactly the same displays as the Approach Controller.

If you were on Approach Frequency - how do you know you were held because of Tower Requirements? Do you in fact , KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE SITUATION DEFINATLVELY?

You have effectively defamed the senior leadership of the ADF with yoru vitriole.

Once again - I state, categorically:

YOU ARE BENEATH COMTEMPT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You continue to prove (and trust me, we don't require confirmation) that you in fact an utter fool.



Come on moderators - you will probably ban me for this, but you should:

Ban the fool who started this thread - step up/harden up!!!!

(PS - and if you continue to let fools like Dick post **** like this - I don't care for this site anyway)


Dick - go buy a yatch or something....get another hobby (because I was a proffessional ATC, where you have NEVER been more that a hobby pilot.................)

[YPJT]

Scran,



This is going straight to the pool room.

[Jack Ranga]

Scran,

He wont get banned over his behaviour. A few of us know why

Dick continues to defame, slander and abuse (according to the rules that the rest of us get banned for).

Any logical person saw the evidence produced to prove Dick embarrassingly wrong on the bullsh!t procedure he proposes. He subtly changes tack and continues to slander