Williamtown Procedures
On a similar note I have been held at the holding point for one two waiting to depart, while an A320 who has not yet reached the outer marker is allowed to land. The WX at the time was broken at 3000!
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm starting to get a little confused about what the problem actually is. You actually got access through Military Restricted Airspace right?
Just out of interest, do you drive a car? If so, you'll completely understand my grief when I tell you about an incident I had coming home last night.
I had to stop at a set of traffic lights and there was nobody, I mean absolutely nobody, on the crossing. Visibility was about 5km and cloud base about four thousand. Why are we stopping at red lights when there is no possibility of conflict? I must have wasted a good two minutes.
I was already angry from an incident the previous day when I drove into a national park and a sign at the end of the sealed section had the audacity to declare that "no vehicles were allowed, park and emergency vehicles excepted". This is clear prejudice and to be honest, ridiculous. There was only one group on the pedestrian track and visibility was at least four hundred metres, cloud base about ten thousand. Why would ranger vehicles and emergency vehicles get to access these areas, but not me?
Talk about restrictive procedures. Seriously though, I'll tell you who I'm not going to blame - the Police Department and the guys from Parks and Wildlife.
Just out of interest, do you drive a car? If so, you'll completely understand my grief when I tell you about an incident I had coming home last night.
I had to stop at a set of traffic lights and there was nobody, I mean absolutely nobody, on the crossing. Visibility was about 5km and cloud base about four thousand. Why are we stopping at red lights when there is no possibility of conflict? I must have wasted a good two minutes.
I was already angry from an incident the previous day when I drove into a national park and a sign at the end of the sealed section had the audacity to declare that "no vehicles were allowed, park and emergency vehicles excepted". This is clear prejudice and to be honest, ridiculous. There was only one group on the pedestrian track and visibility was at least four hundred metres, cloud base about ten thousand. Why would ranger vehicles and emergency vehicles get to access these areas, but not me?
Talk about restrictive procedures. Seriously though, I'll tell you who I'm not going to blame - the Police Department and the guys from Parks and Wildlife.
Thread Starter
Peuce
You state,
as your explanation for why we can’t accept modern international air traffic control procedures.
Peuce, I have heard it all before. When I was originally on the Board of the Civil Aviation Authority, I was told that we needed to have unique certification standards for aircraft in Australia – because Australia is different. This cost tens of millions of dollars per year for recertification and modification of aircraft, all meaning less money for real safety issues.
For example, in a 747 the flight data recorder had to be modified so its sampling rate was different to that accepted by ICAO and in the country of manufacture.
As CAA Chairman, I introduced a first of type acceptance from five leading aviation countries where modifications did not have to be made. Have aircraft crashed since then because we have accepted overseas certification standards? No, there has been no measurable effect on reducing safety, in fact most likely the opposite because such a huge amount of money has been able to be reallocated from “technical wine-tasting” trips by bureaucrats to real safety issues, i.e. more simulator training or even getting a simulator in Australia in the first place!
C-change
You mention that in some instances other countries do things better. Why wouldn’t you then copy these things? My success has come from looking around the world and copying the best. Sounds pretty sensible to me. And if I found that the USA and Canada and other countries had air traffic control procedures that gave the same high levels of safety but saved waste, I would certainly want to look at it.
You ask me what target resolution procedures are. Basically, when aircraft are in VMC in Class C airspace the radar “blips” must not meet. Now before you throw up your hands in rage, it doesn’t mean the air traffic controllers let aircraft get that close. It just means that rather than keeping them a ridiculous three miles apart – which is the separation standard when they are both in cloud – it allows the air traffic controller to use professional judgement and let them get closer. In many cases, this saves a huge amount of time and reduces workload.
In the Williamtown situation I referred to at the start of this thread, the extra workload on the controller by holding two aircraft can lead to reducing safety for the airline aircraft that he or she should be concentrating on. Anyway, this is what I am told by international air traffic control specialists.
If the tower had airspace to the boundary like it does in Canberra - took about ten years to get in – the controllers can use a quite different separation standard. They regularly do it in Canberra. Aircraft are allowed to fly to Parliament House when there is an aircraft on approach to the runway from the south.
Of course you could say “what happens if the pilot has to do a missed approach”? Well, the controllers can handle that quite well because they are allowed to make professional judgements in relation to separation.
C-change, once again I say our controllers are the best in the world, but they are treated as if they are kindergarten children by the military hierarchy and not given a proper professional level of responsibility. As I have said, I can imagine why the morale would be low, and I certainly would not recommend to young people to join the military under the present situation. You can see that the people in charge are abrogating their responsibility of providing leadership, allowing individuals to accept responsibility and be accountable.
This has only been going on for twenty-five years. One day it will be changed. I remember with the Victor lane, how Alan Green – the ex-military person then with Qantas - spent his whole life trying to prevent it, claiming that if a Qantas aircraft had an engine failure on departing to the east it could drop down into the lane.
Fortunately we were able to work around Alan Green, and the Victor lane has substantially improved safety by reducing completely unnecessary workload on approach controllers.
Once again, it was copying the best from overseas.
The military explanation of the archaic Class C procedures that controllers must comply with is that the military do not have their own Class C procedures and simply copy those of Airservices. Of course, Airservices has a responsibility to maximise profits, not change to modern international safe procedures.
We need to do this at Williamtown and at other places. One day it will happen. In the meantime, I am going to become quite vocal in explaining to the Australian public how weak our military leaders are and how this is most likely resulting in avoidable fatalities because it’s clear that there is no ethic to ever ask advice or to copy the success from around the world. It’s all about “we don’t want to ask, we don’t want to know, we do it best, go away”.
You state,
“the answer is still all different”
Peuce, I have heard it all before. When I was originally on the Board of the Civil Aviation Authority, I was told that we needed to have unique certification standards for aircraft in Australia – because Australia is different. This cost tens of millions of dollars per year for recertification and modification of aircraft, all meaning less money for real safety issues.
For example, in a 747 the flight data recorder had to be modified so its sampling rate was different to that accepted by ICAO and in the country of manufacture.
As CAA Chairman, I introduced a first of type acceptance from five leading aviation countries where modifications did not have to be made. Have aircraft crashed since then because we have accepted overseas certification standards? No, there has been no measurable effect on reducing safety, in fact most likely the opposite because such a huge amount of money has been able to be reallocated from “technical wine-tasting” trips by bureaucrats to real safety issues, i.e. more simulator training or even getting a simulator in Australia in the first place!
C-change
You mention that in some instances other countries do things better. Why wouldn’t you then copy these things? My success has come from looking around the world and copying the best. Sounds pretty sensible to me. And if I found that the USA and Canada and other countries had air traffic control procedures that gave the same high levels of safety but saved waste, I would certainly want to look at it.
You ask me what target resolution procedures are. Basically, when aircraft are in VMC in Class C airspace the radar “blips” must not meet. Now before you throw up your hands in rage, it doesn’t mean the air traffic controllers let aircraft get that close. It just means that rather than keeping them a ridiculous three miles apart – which is the separation standard when they are both in cloud – it allows the air traffic controller to use professional judgement and let them get closer. In many cases, this saves a huge amount of time and reduces workload.
In the Williamtown situation I referred to at the start of this thread, the extra workload on the controller by holding two aircraft can lead to reducing safety for the airline aircraft that he or she should be concentrating on. Anyway, this is what I am told by international air traffic control specialists.
If the tower had airspace to the boundary like it does in Canberra - took about ten years to get in – the controllers can use a quite different separation standard. They regularly do it in Canberra. Aircraft are allowed to fly to Parliament House when there is an aircraft on approach to the runway from the south.
Of course you could say “what happens if the pilot has to do a missed approach”? Well, the controllers can handle that quite well because they are allowed to make professional judgements in relation to separation.
C-change, once again I say our controllers are the best in the world, but they are treated as if they are kindergarten children by the military hierarchy and not given a proper professional level of responsibility. As I have said, I can imagine why the morale would be low, and I certainly would not recommend to young people to join the military under the present situation. You can see that the people in charge are abrogating their responsibility of providing leadership, allowing individuals to accept responsibility and be accountable.
This has only been going on for twenty-five years. One day it will be changed. I remember with the Victor lane, how Alan Green – the ex-military person then with Qantas - spent his whole life trying to prevent it, claiming that if a Qantas aircraft had an engine failure on departing to the east it could drop down into the lane.
Fortunately we were able to work around Alan Green, and the Victor lane has substantially improved safety by reducing completely unnecessary workload on approach controllers.
Once again, it was copying the best from overseas.
The military explanation of the archaic Class C procedures that controllers must comply with is that the military do not have their own Class C procedures and simply copy those of Airservices. Of course, Airservices has a responsibility to maximise profits, not change to modern international safe procedures.
We need to do this at Williamtown and at other places. One day it will happen. In the meantime, I am going to become quite vocal in explaining to the Australian public how weak our military leaders are and how this is most likely resulting in avoidable fatalities because it’s clear that there is no ethic to ever ask advice or to copy the success from around the world. It’s all about “we don’t want to ask, we don’t want to know, we do it best, go away”.
Thread Starter
NTZ
Your post is so ridiculous I wonder if you are one of those military-types trying to justify the status quo.
A better example in relation to the traffic lights would be if the traffic lights were set so that vehicles had to remain three miles apart on the road.
NTZ, the situation is as simple as this: other leading aviation countries have regulations and procedures which facilitate traffic in the safest possible way. We have never updated to these procedures, so it means that our air traffic controllers are treated like s***. I have spoken to controllers who have said they would love to use the procedures that controllers use in other countries, such as those the USA, Canada and the UK are allowed to use, but it’s just not so.
I have had military people tell me that the RAAF is going to move to these modern procedures, but after decades of being told this, nothing has happened.
My suggestion is you open your mind and think laterally, rather than keep it set in concrete.
Your post is so ridiculous I wonder if you are one of those military-types trying to justify the status quo.
A better example in relation to the traffic lights would be if the traffic lights were set so that vehicles had to remain three miles apart on the road.
NTZ, the situation is as simple as this: other leading aviation countries have regulations and procedures which facilitate traffic in the safest possible way. We have never updated to these procedures, so it means that our air traffic controllers are treated like s***. I have spoken to controllers who have said they would love to use the procedures that controllers use in other countries, such as those the USA, Canada and the UK are allowed to use, but it’s just not so.
I have had military people tell me that the RAAF is going to move to these modern procedures, but after decades of being told this, nothing has happened.
My suggestion is you open your mind and think laterally, rather than keep it set in concrete.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your example of procedures at Canberra as against Williamtown is invalid.
At Canberra, an aircraft at Parliment House is well clear of the approach path from the south, whereas the coastal lane at Willy CROSSES the approach path for an aircraft to Runway 30 (assuming an instrument approach).
Apples with Apples Dick.
And I agree with posters above - your comments on senior military officers make you beneath contempt
(Ex Mil ATC - 2 tours at Williamtown)
(Edited to add Instrument in the approach brackets)
At Canberra, an aircraft at Parliment House is well clear of the approach path from the south, whereas the coastal lane at Willy CROSSES the approach path for an aircraft to Runway 30 (assuming an instrument approach).
Apples with Apples Dick.
And I agree with posters above - your comments on senior military officers make you beneath contempt
(Ex Mil ATC - 2 tours at Williamtown)
(Edited to add Instrument in the approach brackets)
Last edited by scran; 18th Jan 2011 at 00:01.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disk Smith says:-
What techniques?? … ah
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/ATC.pdf
Chapter 5 – RADAR
In other words, ‘Target Resolution’ is the procedures when separation no longer or does not exist. Pilots do not get “simple instructions” in this procedure, they get traffic information and safety alerts (it is tantamount to radar based traffic alerts in class G). It is not the RADAR separation minima.
Are you arguing for class E??? …. Hmmm must being seeing as:-
Separation minima in the US is as follows:-
it is quite clear you simply have no idea on how professional air traffic controllers work in countries like the United States and Canada. They don’t end up with people in Class C airspace (I have never asked for or wanted Class D at Williamtown) relying on pilots arranging their own separation. They use techniques which allow them to keep the aircraft apart without having to hold aircraft unnecessarily.
I mentioned in a previous post the tower having airspace or the radar controller being allowed to use target resolution procedures. Why don’t you answer this? Tell me: why in the United States and Canada – with possibly twenty times the number of pilots - don’t they have the problem you are claiming, i.e. pilots who “cannot be relied upon to follow simple instructions”.
Chapter 5 – RADAR
5-5-3. TARGET RESOLUTION
a. A process to ensure that correlated radar targets or digitized targets do not touch.
b. Mandatory traffic advisories and safety alerts shall be issued when this procedure is used.
[U]NOTE This procedure shall not be provided utilizing mosaic radar systems.
c. Target resolution shall be applied as follows:
1. Between the edges of two primary targets or the edges of primary digitized targets.
2. Between the end of the beacon control slash and the edge of a primary target or primary digitized target.
3. Between the ends of two beacon control slashes.
a. A process to ensure that correlated radar targets or digitized targets do not touch.
b. Mandatory traffic advisories and safety alerts shall be issued when this procedure is used.
[U]NOTE This procedure shall not be provided utilizing mosaic radar systems.
c. Target resolution shall be applied as follows:
1. Between the edges of two primary targets or the edges of primary digitized targets.
2. Between the end of the beacon control slash and the edge of a primary target or primary digitized target.
3. Between the ends of two beacon control slashes.
Are you arguing for class E??? …. Hmmm must being seeing as:-
Separation minima in the US is as follows:-
5-5-4. MINIMA
Separate aircraft by the following minima:
a. Broadband Radar System or Digital Terminal Automation System (DTAS):
NOTE Includes single sensor long range radar mode.
1. When less than 40 miles from the antenna – 3_miles.
2. When 40 miles or more from the antenna – 5_miles.
3. TERMINAL. For single sensor ASR-9 with Mode S, when less than 60 miles from the antenna – 3 miles.
NOTE Wake turbulence procedures specify increased separation minima required for certain classes of aircraft because of the possible effects of wake turbulence.
b. Stage A/DARC, MEARTS Mosaic Mode, Terminal Mosaic/Multi-Sensor Mode:
NOTE Mosaic/Multi-Sensor Mode combines radar input from 2 to 16 sites into a single picture utilizing a mosaic grid composed of radar sort boxes.
1. Below FL 600- 5 miles.
2. At or above FL 600- 10 miles.
3. For areas meeting all of the following conditions:
(a) Radar site adaptation is set to single sensor.
(b) Significant operational advantages can be obtained.
(c) Within 40 miles of the antenna.
(d) Below FL 180.
(e) Facility directives specifically define the area where the separation can be applied. Facility directives may specify 3 miles.
4. When transitioning from terminal to en route control, 3 miles increasing to 5 miles or greater, provided:
(a) The aircraft are on diverging routes/ courses, and/or
(b) The leading aircraft is and will remain faster than the following aircraft; and
(c) Separation constantly increasing and the first center controller will establish 5 NM or other appropriate form of separation prior to the aircraft departing the first center sector; and
(d) The procedure is covered by a letter of agreement between the facilities involved and limited to specified routes and/or sectors/positions.
c. MEARTS Mosaic Mode:
NOTE-
1. Sensor Mode displays information from the radar input of a single site.
2. Procedures to convert MEARTS Mosaic Mode to MEARTS Sensor Mode at each PVD/MDM will be established by facility directive.
1. When less than 40 miles from the antenna- 3_miles.
2. When 40 miles or more from the antenna- 5_miles.
d. STARS Multi-Sensor Mode:
NOTE-
1. In Multi-Sensor Mode, STARS displays targets as filled and unfilled boxes, depending upon the target's distance from the radar site providing the data. Since there is presently no way to identify which specific site is providing data for any given target, utilize separation standards for targets 40 or more miles from the antenna.
2. When operating in STARS Single Sensor Mode, if TRK appears in the data block, handle in accordance with para_5-3-7, Identification Status, subpara b, and take appropriate steps to establish nonradar separation.
3. TRK appears in the data block whenever the aircraft is being tracked by a radar site other than the radar currently selected. Current equipment limitations preclude a target from being displayed in the single sensor mode; however, a position symbol and data block, including altitude information, will still be displayed. Therefore, low altitude alerts shall be provided in accordance with para 2-1-6, Safety Alert.
WAKE TURBULENCE APPLICATION
e. Separate aircraft operating directly behind, or directly behind and less than 1,000 feet below, or following an aircraft conducting an instrument approach by:
NOTE-
1. When applying wake turbulence separation criteria, directly behind means an aircraft is operating within 2500_feet of the flight path of the leading aircraft over the surface of the earth.
2. Consider parallel runways less than 2,500 feet apart as a single runway because of the possible effects of wake turbulence.
1. Heavy behind heavy- 4 miles.
2. Large/heavy behind B757- 4 miles.
3. Small behind B757- 5 miles.
4. Small/large behind heavy – 5 miles.
WAKE TURBULENCE APPLICATION
f. TERMINAL. In addition to subpara e, separate an aircraft landing behind another aircraft on the same runway, or one making a touch‐and‐go, stop‐and‐go, or low approach by ensuring the following minima will exist at the time the preceding aircraft is over the landing threshold:
NOTE Consider parallel runways less than 2,500 feet apart as a single runway because of the possible effects of wake turbulence.
1. Small behind large- 4 miles.
2. Small behind B757- 5 miles.
3. Small behind heavy- 6 miles.
g. TERMINAL. 2.5 nautical miles (NM) separation is authorized between aircraft established on the final approach course within 10 NM of the landing runway when operating in single sensor slant range mode and aircraft remains within 40 miles of the antenna and:
1. The leading aircraft's weight class is the same or less than the trailing aircraft;
2. Heavy aircraft and the Boeing 757 are permitted to participate in the separation reduction as the trailing aircraft only;
3. An average runway occupancy time of 50_seconds or less is documented;
4. CTRDs are operational and used for quick glance references;
5. Turnoff points are visible from the control tower.
Separate aircraft by the following minima:
a. Broadband Radar System or Digital Terminal Automation System (DTAS):
NOTE Includes single sensor long range radar mode.
1. When less than 40 miles from the antenna – 3_miles.
2. When 40 miles or more from the antenna – 5_miles.
3. TERMINAL. For single sensor ASR-9 with Mode S, when less than 60 miles from the antenna – 3 miles.
NOTE Wake turbulence procedures specify increased separation minima required for certain classes of aircraft because of the possible effects of wake turbulence.
b. Stage A/DARC, MEARTS Mosaic Mode, Terminal Mosaic/Multi-Sensor Mode:
NOTE Mosaic/Multi-Sensor Mode combines radar input from 2 to 16 sites into a single picture utilizing a mosaic grid composed of radar sort boxes.
1. Below FL 600- 5 miles.
2. At or above FL 600- 10 miles.
3. For areas meeting all of the following conditions:
(a) Radar site adaptation is set to single sensor.
(b) Significant operational advantages can be obtained.
(c) Within 40 miles of the antenna.
(d) Below FL 180.
(e) Facility directives specifically define the area where the separation can be applied. Facility directives may specify 3 miles.
4. When transitioning from terminal to en route control, 3 miles increasing to 5 miles or greater, provided:
(a) The aircraft are on diverging routes/ courses, and/or
(b) The leading aircraft is and will remain faster than the following aircraft; and
(c) Separation constantly increasing and the first center controller will establish 5 NM or other appropriate form of separation prior to the aircraft departing the first center sector; and
(d) The procedure is covered by a letter of agreement between the facilities involved and limited to specified routes and/or sectors/positions.
c. MEARTS Mosaic Mode:
NOTE-
1. Sensor Mode displays information from the radar input of a single site.
2. Procedures to convert MEARTS Mosaic Mode to MEARTS Sensor Mode at each PVD/MDM will be established by facility directive.
1. When less than 40 miles from the antenna- 3_miles.
2. When 40 miles or more from the antenna- 5_miles.
d. STARS Multi-Sensor Mode:
NOTE-
1. In Multi-Sensor Mode, STARS displays targets as filled and unfilled boxes, depending upon the target's distance from the radar site providing the data. Since there is presently no way to identify which specific site is providing data for any given target, utilize separation standards for targets 40 or more miles from the antenna.
2. When operating in STARS Single Sensor Mode, if TRK appears in the data block, handle in accordance with para_5-3-7, Identification Status, subpara b, and take appropriate steps to establish nonradar separation.
3. TRK appears in the data block whenever the aircraft is being tracked by a radar site other than the radar currently selected. Current equipment limitations preclude a target from being displayed in the single sensor mode; however, a position symbol and data block, including altitude information, will still be displayed. Therefore, low altitude alerts shall be provided in accordance with para 2-1-6, Safety Alert.
WAKE TURBULENCE APPLICATION
e. Separate aircraft operating directly behind, or directly behind and less than 1,000 feet below, or following an aircraft conducting an instrument approach by:
NOTE-
1. When applying wake turbulence separation criteria, directly behind means an aircraft is operating within 2500_feet of the flight path of the leading aircraft over the surface of the earth.
2. Consider parallel runways less than 2,500 feet apart as a single runway because of the possible effects of wake turbulence.
1. Heavy behind heavy- 4 miles.
2. Large/heavy behind B757- 4 miles.
3. Small behind B757- 5 miles.
4. Small/large behind heavy – 5 miles.
WAKE TURBULENCE APPLICATION
f. TERMINAL. In addition to subpara e, separate an aircraft landing behind another aircraft on the same runway, or one making a touch‐and‐go, stop‐and‐go, or low approach by ensuring the following minima will exist at the time the preceding aircraft is over the landing threshold:
NOTE Consider parallel runways less than 2,500 feet apart as a single runway because of the possible effects of wake turbulence.
1. Small behind large- 4 miles.
2. Small behind B757- 5 miles.
3. Small behind heavy- 6 miles.
g. TERMINAL. 2.5 nautical miles (NM) separation is authorized between aircraft established on the final approach course within 10 NM of the landing runway when operating in single sensor slant range mode and aircraft remains within 40 miles of the antenna and:
1. The leading aircraft's weight class is the same or less than the trailing aircraft;
2. Heavy aircraft and the Boeing 757 are permitted to participate in the separation reduction as the trailing aircraft only;
3. An average runway occupancy time of 50_seconds or less is documented;
4. CTRDs are operational and used for quick glance references;
5. Turnoff points are visible from the control tower.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C Change asks:-
Fair question. especially considering this:-
In Feb 2008 Disk Smith said:-
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...ml#post3905117
And then in June 2008 Disk Smith said:-
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...ml#post4184960
So what say you Disk? I’d like to know you answer to C Changes question also!
As a related aside, 2 posts later:-
if you felt holding was placing you in any sort of danger, did you ask for a higher lever, direct to the field to overfly ?
In Feb 2008 Disk Smith said:-
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...ml#post3905117
Here is some good news. I have received a number of reports that they are changing some of the procedures at Williamtown. For example, an aircraft going up the light aircraft lane was given 1,000 feet as the altitude – better than 500 feet if there is a necessity to orbit.
More importantly, aircraft have been allowed over the top. Recently a VFR aircraft was given a clearance over the top at 3,500 feet whilst three RPT aircraft were coming in. The VFR aircraft was actually right over the top of the field when one of the RPTs landed.
Congratulations to those at Williamtown who are making the changes. I “dips me lid” to you.
More importantly, aircraft have been allowed over the top. Recently a VFR aircraft was given a clearance over the top at 3,500 feet whilst three RPT aircraft were coming in. The VFR aircraft was actually right over the top of the field when one of the RPTs landed.
Congratulations to those at Williamtown who are making the changes. I “dips me lid” to you.
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...ml#post4184960
Great service at Williamtown
I came down through the Williamtown airspace yesterday afternoon in my helicopter. On board were my wife and three grandchildren – one of whom is under two years old and can’t swim.
As I passed Port Stephens heading south and dropped to 500 feet, it became obvious that there were a number of IFR aircraft heading into Williamtown.
I dreaded what was going to happen, but it was not so. The friendly controller called me and advised that there was a lot of IFR traffic and I could either hold at Anna Bay or track overhead the Williamtown airfield at 1,000 feet. As holding at Anna Bay would have taken me out over a frighteningly rough ocean at 500 feet, I opted to track to Williamtown. From there I was tracked to Nobbys. It probably put a slight extra distance on my route but meant that flight safety was maintained.
The controller even apologised for the extra tracking that was required. I thanked him, and here I would like to say to whoever has made these changes, “I ‘dips me lid’ to you.”
Flying a bit of extra distance over land is always preferred to orbiting over a rough ocean with young children at 500 feet.
I came down through the Williamtown airspace yesterday afternoon in my helicopter. On board were my wife and three grandchildren – one of whom is under two years old and can’t swim.
As I passed Port Stephens heading south and dropped to 500 feet, it became obvious that there were a number of IFR aircraft heading into Williamtown.
I dreaded what was going to happen, but it was not so. The friendly controller called me and advised that there was a lot of IFR traffic and I could either hold at Anna Bay or track overhead the Williamtown airfield at 1,000 feet. As holding at Anna Bay would have taken me out over a frighteningly rough ocean at 500 feet, I opted to track to Williamtown. From there I was tracked to Nobbys. It probably put a slight extra distance on my route but meant that flight safety was maintained.
The controller even apologised for the extra tracking that was required. I thanked him, and here I would like to say to whoever has made these changes, “I ‘dips me lid’ to you.”
Flying a bit of extra distance over land is always preferred to orbiting over a rough ocean with young children at 500 feet.
As a related aside, 2 posts later:-
By the way I understand we can thank AOPA for encouraging the RAAF to make the improvements.
Dick, you said:
We are not talking about aircraft certification here, we are talking about Air Traffic Management ... two different pieces of fruit. In general, I actually agree with your position on certification, but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Peuce, I have heard it all before. When I was originally on the Board of the Civil Aviation Authority, I was told that we needed to have unique certification standards for aircraft in Australia – because Australia is different.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your post is so ridiculous I wonder if you are one of those military-types trying to justify the status quo.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, wonder away. Ironically the military I parted many years ago for similar arguments, but on different topics.
The point I was trying to make is that these procedures aren't in play for your benefit. This is Military Restricted Airspace and the procedures are in use for for the primary users, usually with quite valid reasons. You are in their playing field. You blame ATC, or them indirectly by their leadership, but in most cases, it is these users that propose and sign off on the procedures in use to fit in with their own operations (providing that it isn't legislated of course).
What next, no Class C, no Class A. You just fly where you want, when you want and you'll be the judge of the impact it has on the rest of the aviation community?
I've got no problem with you disagreeing with the procedure, but please, spend a few hours with all of the operators (ATC included) before you go and decide what is best for them.
The point I was trying to make is that these procedures aren't in play for your benefit. This is Military Restricted Airspace and the procedures are in use for for the primary users, usually with quite valid reasons. You are in their playing field. You blame ATC, or them indirectly by their leadership, but in most cases, it is these users that propose and sign off on the procedures in use to fit in with their own operations (providing that it isn't legislated of course).
What next, no Class C, no Class A. You just fly where you want, when you want and you'll be the judge of the impact it has on the rest of the aviation community?
I've got no problem with you disagreeing with the procedure, but please, spend a few hours with all of the operators (ATC included) before you go and decide what is best for them.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How very disappointing to have somebody so crass as to criticise an Australian of the Year as being beneath contempt with regard The Australian Defence Forces.
I personally would have liked to continue to use visual separation above 10,000ft, but I can't. Using it will see me losing my job.
And just what have you achieved Frank?
Nobody I know denies Dick's wonderful achievements, his philanthropy alone makes him a great Australian.
Airspace? Procedures? Stick to what you know and are good at Dick
Thread Starter
Scran
My examples in relation to Canberra are correct. You can fly in from the north across the missed approach path into Canberra and get a clearance from Canberra tower (whose airspace you are in) to fly visually to Parliament House.
Obviously if an aircraft on approach to Canberra does a missed approach, it’s in your vicinity. Somehow Canberra tower can handle this – like controllers do all around the world in places other than Williamtown.
The Chaser
Target resolution is used in all Class C airspace in the United States. The controllers have told me if they did not use target resolution procedures, they basically would not be able to operate Class C airspace safely.
Please understand that under ICAO in Class C, IFR must be separated from VFR.
The FAA has not notified a difference in relation to Class C, so they consider the procedures they use in Class C to be control procedures and have the controller responsible for separating aircraft.
Yes, I agree – it’s not three miles. It’s as you point out in the documents you have posted.
Of course, they do give traffic to each aircraft. When I am flying at flight levels, controllers normally give me traffic of someone crossing or passing at a nearby altitude. It’s just courtesy and adds to safety if someone has made a mistake. It does not mean the controller is not responsible for separation.
I say again – these Class C procedures would be ideal for Williamtown which does not have mosaic radar and as far as I know is using a single head for aircraft that are in close to the field.
Or, as I mentioned before, why not give the tower some airspace so it can control traffic like they do at Sydney airport. You are not separated there if you are in a helicopter by three miles from an IFR aircraft – they have some quite modern procedures similar to what is used in the United States – that’s if you have the right controllers on duty.
Peuce
You say aircraft certification has nothing to do with air traffic control procedures, however I am giving an example of where people in the bureaucracy have maintained that something shouldn’t be changed for many years and, when it is, it’s widely supported.
If we can accept the US certification standards, why can’t we accept US-enlightened procedures for Class C?
Once again I see all these posts about maintaining the status quo. Once again, I’m not criticising workface air traffic controllers in the military. I feel extremely sorry for them. They are treated as second-rate people, not allowed to make responsible decisions that their colleagues make every day all around the world.
One day this will be fixed. Until then, I wouldn’t recommend people join the military because it’s clear that some of the procedures are up to fifty years out of date. This is nothing short of criminal, as far as I am concerned, when lives are at risk.
My examples in relation to Canberra are correct. You can fly in from the north across the missed approach path into Canberra and get a clearance from Canberra tower (whose airspace you are in) to fly visually to Parliament House.
Obviously if an aircraft on approach to Canberra does a missed approach, it’s in your vicinity. Somehow Canberra tower can handle this – like controllers do all around the world in places other than Williamtown.
The Chaser
Target resolution is used in all Class C airspace in the United States. The controllers have told me if they did not use target resolution procedures, they basically would not be able to operate Class C airspace safely.
Please understand that under ICAO in Class C, IFR must be separated from VFR.
The FAA has not notified a difference in relation to Class C, so they consider the procedures they use in Class C to be control procedures and have the controller responsible for separating aircraft.
Yes, I agree – it’s not three miles. It’s as you point out in the documents you have posted.
Of course, they do give traffic to each aircraft. When I am flying at flight levels, controllers normally give me traffic of someone crossing or passing at a nearby altitude. It’s just courtesy and adds to safety if someone has made a mistake. It does not mean the controller is not responsible for separation.
I say again – these Class C procedures would be ideal for Williamtown which does not have mosaic radar and as far as I know is using a single head for aircraft that are in close to the field.
Or, as I mentioned before, why not give the tower some airspace so it can control traffic like they do at Sydney airport. You are not separated there if you are in a helicopter by three miles from an IFR aircraft – they have some quite modern procedures similar to what is used in the United States – that’s if you have the right controllers on duty.
Peuce
You say aircraft certification has nothing to do with air traffic control procedures, however I am giving an example of where people in the bureaucracy have maintained that something shouldn’t be changed for many years and, when it is, it’s widely supported.
If we can accept the US certification standards, why can’t we accept US-enlightened procedures for Class C?
Once again I see all these posts about maintaining the status quo. Once again, I’m not criticising workface air traffic controllers in the military. I feel extremely sorry for them. They are treated as second-rate people, not allowed to make responsible decisions that their colleagues make every day all around the world.
One day this will be fixed. Until then, I wouldn’t recommend people join the military because it’s clear that some of the procedures are up to fifty years out of date. This is nothing short of criminal, as far as I am concerned, when lives are at risk.
Thread Starter
Jack Ranga
Thanks for the nice words, however I consider my best achievements have been in aviation reform. One day I’m going to write a book of the changes that have been made that are now accepted by pilots and air traffic controllers.
Can you imagine if you told a Sydney tower or approach air traffic controller that he or she had to start separating VFR helicopters from each other? They would go crazy!
Well, for the first three years of my flying helicopters in Sydney, this is what happened. I even wrote a complete chapter in my book, “Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom”. By encouraging people to copy modern overseas practices, I managed to get this changed, and now helicopters can fly in Sydney and in other places in Australia – especially Hobart – using modern international procedures.
I can well remember having to hold at Hornsby for ten minutes orbiting in a single engine helicopter over a built-up area whilst the controller was waiting for the Channel 9 helicopter to clear the control zone so I could be allowed to fly in to North Ryde. The whole thing was ridiculous, but believe it or not at the time there were controllers – and mainly their bosses – who maintained that these procedures were necessary for safety.
What a load of rubbish!
No-one would want to go back to that today. That’s why we need to support our controllers and allow them to use modern, international procedures in Class C airspace.
Thanks for the nice words, however I consider my best achievements have been in aviation reform. One day I’m going to write a book of the changes that have been made that are now accepted by pilots and air traffic controllers.
Can you imagine if you told a Sydney tower or approach air traffic controller that he or she had to start separating VFR helicopters from each other? They would go crazy!
Well, for the first three years of my flying helicopters in Sydney, this is what happened. I even wrote a complete chapter in my book, “Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom”. By encouraging people to copy modern overseas practices, I managed to get this changed, and now helicopters can fly in Sydney and in other places in Australia – especially Hobart – using modern international procedures.
I can well remember having to hold at Hornsby for ten minutes orbiting in a single engine helicopter over a built-up area whilst the controller was waiting for the Channel 9 helicopter to clear the control zone so I could be allowed to fly in to North Ryde. The whole thing was ridiculous, but believe it or not at the time there were controllers – and mainly their bosses – who maintained that these procedures were necessary for safety.
What a load of rubbish!
No-one would want to go back to that today. That’s why we need to support our controllers and allow them to use modern, international procedures in Class C airspace.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 18th Jan 2011 at 02:42.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... you didn't answer C Changes question. WHY?
Which is not the 'Target Resolution' procedure. You are wrong to suggest so Disk. In class C in the US, and all other contracting states, IFR are separated from IFR and VFR, VFR need not be separated from other VFR, thus the procedure as above. Do you not see the difference between reality (written), and your reality 
The Williamtown scenario was not between two VFR was it!? Further, in Sydney the tower 'Separate' where able, using ATC applied 'visual separation', it is a separation standard, not a DTI and hope they won't hit, or for that matter a RADAR DTI Target Resolution procedure ... which again I stress is not a 'separation standard'.
If a US TRACON controller used target resolution between two IFR or an IFR and a VFR, are you saying that is not going to have them in the office for Tea and Bikkies (not crap el cheapo ones)?
The FAA has not notified a difference in relation to Class C, so they consider the procedures they use in Class C to be control procedures and have the controller responsible for separating aircraft.
The Williamtown scenario was not between two VFR was it!? Further, in Sydney the tower 'Separate' where able, using ATC applied 'visual separation', it is a separation standard, not a DTI and hope they won't hit, or for that matter a RADAR DTI Target Resolution procedure ... which again I stress is not a 'separation standard'.
If a US TRACON controller used target resolution between two IFR or an IFR and a VFR, are you saying that is not going to have them in the office for Tea and Bikkies (not crap el cheapo ones)?
Thread Starter
The Chaser
I did not state that under ICAO in Class C that VFR are separated from VFR. I said it very clearly,
I understand the reason they have target resolution procedures is so the aircraft can get close enough together so visual separation can be used.
Australian air traffic controllers know it’s virtually impossible to see a small aeroplane three miles away, and so this means they basically separate them by three miles.
Wouldn’t it be better to have the US procedure where aircraft can be allowed to get closer together so they can sight each other?
If it works at Sydney airport, do you reckon it might work at Williamtown?
By the way, can someone tell me how much airspace the tower actually controls at Williamtown? Is it out to the circuit boundary or is it just the runway? I would love to know.
I did not state that under ICAO in Class C that VFR are separated from VFR. I said it very clearly,
please understand that under ICAO in Class C, IFR must be separated from VFR
Australian air traffic controllers know it’s virtually impossible to see a small aeroplane three miles away, and so this means they basically separate them by three miles.
Wouldn’t it be better to have the US procedure where aircraft can be allowed to get closer together so they can sight each other?
If it works at Sydney airport, do you reckon it might work at Williamtown?
By the way, can someone tell me how much airspace the tower actually controls at Williamtown? Is it out to the circuit boundary or is it just the runway? I would love to know.
Thread Starter
The Chaser
You state
What I know for certain is that US TRACON controllers use target resolution in Class C when visual conditions exist. Why wouldn’t you? Why would you want to be bound to our three mile separation standard which is designed for when you are in I.M.C.?
Chaser, you haven’t answered one thing: what is the reason the military haven’t at least investigated target resolution procedures for Williamtown and, if they have, why haven’t they explained why they don’t want to go this way?
I think you will find there has been no genuine investigation. Minds are closed. Minds are set in concrete. It’s a system where the incompetent are promoted and the lateral-thinkers leave.
You state
If a US TRACON controller used target resolution between two IFR or an IFR and a VFR, are you saying that is not going to have them in the office for Tea and Bikkies (not crap el cheapo ones)?
Chaser, you haven’t answered one thing: what is the reason the military haven’t at least investigated target resolution procedures for Williamtown and, if they have, why haven’t they explained why they don’t want to go this way?
I think you will find there has been no genuine investigation. Minds are closed. Minds are set in concrete. It’s a system where the incompetent are promoted and the lateral-thinkers leave.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick: you said:
Scran
My examples in relation to Canberra are correct. You can fly in from the north across the missed approach path into Canberra and get a clearance from Canberra tower (whose airspace you are in) to fly visually to Parliament House.
Obviously if an aircraft on approach to Canberra does a missed approach, it’s in your vicinity. Somehow Canberra tower can handle this – like controllers do all around the world in places other than Williamtown.
What you said in your original post was:
Aircraft are allowed to fly to Parliament House when there is an aircraft on approach to the runway from the south.
I qualified my discussion when I mentioned the issue about an instrument approach onto RWY 30 at Willy. You are now expanding on your original point to make it appear correct - again!
So, your answer to me is:
BULL****
Without consulting the charts, even a missed approach of an approach from the north can easily be kept away from and Aircraft at Parliment House, which is basically 3.4NM west of the southern threshold (or close enough). An aircraft holding at Parliment House can simply be separated using lateral separation from the Tower.
That is not the case at Willy where the coastal lane is 3NM from the threshold RWY 30. (Although I can think of ways to have a missed approach aircraft separated from the lane quite easily.)
STOP CHANGING THE ARGUMENT TO SUIT YOURSELF.
(PS - I did two tours of Willy: 1976-79 and 84/85. In those 5 years, I remember holding aircraft on about 3 occassions - which were when Mirages were doing GCA's or an Instrument Approach to RWY 30. I NEVER held a lighty "just in case" of a missed approach on RWY 12. Oh, and re the Tower Airspace question, in my first tour the Tower "controlled" the lane, but on my 2nd tour Approach did. Now I suspect the Tower just controls the circuit area - but it's been a while, so....)
Do us all a favour...................
PPS - and thanks for the compliment - I think laterally and left.......
Scran
My examples in relation to Canberra are correct. You can fly in from the north across the missed approach path into Canberra and get a clearance from Canberra tower (whose airspace you are in) to fly visually to Parliament House.
Obviously if an aircraft on approach to Canberra does a missed approach, it’s in your vicinity. Somehow Canberra tower can handle this – like controllers do all around the world in places other than Williamtown.
What you said in your original post was:
Aircraft are allowed to fly to Parliament House when there is an aircraft on approach to the runway from the south.
I qualified my discussion when I mentioned the issue about an instrument approach onto RWY 30 at Willy. You are now expanding on your original point to make it appear correct - again!
So, your answer to me is:
BULL****
Without consulting the charts, even a missed approach of an approach from the north can easily be kept away from and Aircraft at Parliment House, which is basically 3.4NM west of the southern threshold (or close enough). An aircraft holding at Parliment House can simply be separated using lateral separation from the Tower.
That is not the case at Willy where the coastal lane is 3NM from the threshold RWY 30. (Although I can think of ways to have a missed approach aircraft separated from the lane quite easily.)
STOP CHANGING THE ARGUMENT TO SUIT YOURSELF.
(PS - I did two tours of Willy: 1976-79 and 84/85. In those 5 years, I remember holding aircraft on about 3 occassions - which were when Mirages were doing GCA's or an Instrument Approach to RWY 30. I NEVER held a lighty "just in case" of a missed approach on RWY 12. Oh, and re the Tower Airspace question, in my first tour the Tower "controlled" the lane, but on my 2nd tour Approach did. Now I suspect the Tower just controls the circuit area - but it's been a while, so....)
Do us all a favour...................
PPS - and thanks for the compliment - I think laterally and left.......
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... and there it is folks, he wants a VMC free for all by a different name ... geez what a turn up!
Not between IFR and VFR they don't, 3 miles is for 3 main reasons:-
1. It is a safe distance
2. It enables pilots to concentrate on aviating rather than avoiding
3. It reduces substancially the 'frequency loading' with MANDATORY traffic information and safety alerts.
Why would they need to, they already have these procedures for VFR/VFR management in Class C, in a practical sense, just the same as the USA
It is clear whose minds are closed. If you are going to agitate, insult, misrepresent rules O/S and wrongly blame our hard working Military, at least get your facts straight first.
The Australian Military ATC operate from the same Manual of Air Traffic Services as does Airservices. Both the RAAF insignia and logo of Airservices are on the first page. Also, of greater relevance is that the M.A.T.S is in compliance of its parent legislative document, the Manual of Standards ... who do you reckon is the custodian of the MoS?
= CASA
BTW, I am sure all have noted, you still have not answered C Change's question re the requested clearance
How about you apologise to the hard working men and women of the R.A.A.F you have slagged and insulted?!?!
What I know for certain is that US TRACON controllers use target resolution in Class C when visual conditions exist. Why wouldn’t you? Why would you want to be bound to our three mile separation standard which is designed for when you are in I.M.C.?
1. It is a safe distance
2. It enables pilots to concentrate on aviating rather than avoiding
3. It reduces substancially the 'frequency loading' with MANDATORY traffic information and safety alerts.
Chaser, you haven’t answered one thing: what is the reason the military haven’t at least investigated target resolution procedures for Williamtown and, if they have, why haven’t they explained why they don’t want to go this way?
I think you will find there has been no genuine investigation. Minds are closed. Minds are set in concrete. It’s a system where the incompetent are promoted and the lateral-thinkers leave.
The Australian Military ATC operate from the same Manual of Air Traffic Services as does Airservices. Both the RAAF insignia and logo of Airservices are on the first page. Also, of greater relevance is that the M.A.T.S is in compliance of its parent legislative document, the Manual of Standards ... who do you reckon is the custodian of the MoS?
= CASA
BTW, I am sure all have noted, you still have not answered C Change's question re the requested clearance
How about you apologise to the hard working men and women of the R.A.A.F you have slagged and insulted?!?!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
now accepted by pilots and air traffic controllers.
Your beef is with CASA, ASA, RAAF, OAR and possibly ICAO. Not with individual controllers. You're not going to achieve anything amongst us (ATC's) when you continue to berate us in a public forum.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaser - just to clarify (same sheet of music etc) the radar separation standard wes 3nm between the centre of the two radar returns, but returns never to touch.
With two SSR Returns (symbols) the standard was 5nm, or a mix of primary and SSR 5nm (or it was in my day pre TAAATS/ADATS - I last controlled live in 1992).
Is it now 3nm between centre of the (system generated) symbols? (noting that in some cases, the position of the aircraft "symbol" is a system corrected display given that the aircraft could be detected by several radars in some locations and the "system" generates an "agreed" position - for want of a better word?)
With two SSR Returns (symbols) the standard was 5nm, or a mix of primary and SSR 5nm (or it was in my day pre TAAATS/ADATS - I last controlled live in 1992).
Is it now 3nm between centre of the (system generated) symbols? (noting that in some cases, the position of the aircraft "symbol" is a system corrected display given that the aircraft could be detected by several radars in some locations and the "system" generates an "agreed" position - for want of a better word?)