Williamtown Procedures

[peuce]

Dick,

I must admit I'm having a bit of trouble trying to track down much info on this "target resolution" separation standard you want brought in. In the FAA documents, I'm only finding the "3nm within 40nm of the radar and 5nm outside it" standard.

There is also the provision for the Controller to assign a "Visual Separation" standard when:

• Either the Tower Controller can see the two aircraft, or
• The VFR can see the IFR and he accepts responsibility for maintaining separation

I can't find any hybrid standard where the VFR accepts the visual separation responsibility AND the Controller has to keep "Target resolution" separation. It seems to me it's either one or the other.

I could be wrong and I would appreciate a reference if you have one.

[max1]

From what I can glean from this debate.
Air ambos were doing an ILS (practice?) on Rwy12 at Willy in VMC(?). Dick was attempting to transit the eastern VFR lane but would have been in conflict with a missed approach.
Willy controller held Dick clear until the Air Ambos landed in accordance with Willy procedures.
Dick wonders why we can't use other procedures that allow him to transit. The chances of the RFDS having to actually do a missed approach in VMC was probably less than bugger all. This is all predicated on the above scenario being correct.

Dick can't work out why the controller can't just use a bit of discretion in this specific case to allow his transit?

This is where I feel empathy for the controller, if they had decided to 'bend' a rule that was designed for an IFR aircraft doing an ILS in IMC with a very real chance of a missed approach, and the controller decided that it is VMC and there is bugger all chance of a missed approach so I'll just let the VFR transit the lane and then something happened, e.g. runway occupied, the powers that be would not look at the actions of the controller and decide that what they were doing was reasonable and safe in the conditions of THAT day.
They would appease the media and ergo, public opinion with a headline " Controller sacked who flouted rules and endangered Australian of the Year Dick Smith".

Some of the rules could be modified to allow more discretion but this would require someone with the moral strength inside the organisations to stand by it. This is not Dick, he is now outside the tent.

Unfortunately Australia is now infested (this is not confined to just Aviation but we seem to punch above our weight) with managers and leaders who will not make any kind of contentious decision that may come back to bite them on the arse.

Some political figure in the recesses of time said ' That a politician thinks of the next election, and a statesmen thinks of the next generation'. You could take out politician and election and replace it with manager and, promotion or bonus. We are in need of some Aviation statesmen.

[NTZ]

Sacked? Willful violation = negligence = culpability. Had the Ambo conducted a missed approach and either Dick, the Ambulance or any of their passengers been injured or killed in the process, criminal charges could be just around the corner.

I do agree that any system that doesn't evolve, will stagnate. Technology alone is leaping ahead faster than the procedures that leverage it, let alone modern practices emerging from years of experience, but the argument that 'it works over there and therefore it will work here' is fundamentally flawed.

The US system is not without its problems and before we inherit those, along with the touted benefits, I'd actually like to hear from an expert.

As to this particular dilemma, the procedure is in place to protect the Air Ambulance - which I believe it did. I can't help but wonder how he would feel about a GA pilot, who had the option to use the airspace or avoid it, dictating how he should be kept protected from other aircraft during his (or her) critical stages of flight.

[boofhead]

I learned to fly in Aus and bought into the myth that it is done better there in every way, and the safety record is the best in the world. Since leaving and flying almost everywhere else in the world I have learned that this is not true. More regulation does not make flying safer, just as more government does not make life better. If Australian rules for aviation, including Air Traffic, Pilot Certification, Maintenance etc were applied thoughout the world aviation would come to a crawl and thousands of people would die.
I don't know Dick Smith, but I appreciate his enthusiasm, and am always amazed at the way he is attacked and insulted when he offers an opinion. Is it the great Australian cringe? The Tall Poppy Syndrome?
Grow up fellas, open your eyes to the great big world out there and be prepared to learn something new.

[NTZ]

Shows you military blokes will do everything you can to resist change and never copy better proven procedures from others.

You deserve to have low morale.

Boofhead - With a response like like that, you are amazed that he is attacked and insulted? Now I'm amazed.

[Jack Ranga]

Boofhead,

NOBODY in Australian aviation denies that there are a couple of bureaucracies out of control. Over regulation is an understatement. Who said we do things best anyway?

Personally I think the whole industry should be scrapped and re-built.

The problem with Dick a few of us have, is he attacks the people least able to effect change. It's friggin' easy to attack the 'weakest link'

[scran]

Boofhead - dissappointing post from you.

We are not attacking the tall poppy - the tall poppy started all this with a ridiculous triad against people who cannot defend themselves.......



Max1 - well done - you have agreed with EXACTLY what I suggested I might have done - but Dick keeps telling me I'm wrong, or don't understand, or whatever (I find it hard to follow his argument - when did I ever say I would not consider the revised options?)

Hey Dick - how do you know I would not support a trial of the procedures you suggest? Where did I EVER say I would not? See why we find you hard to follow?

Oh, and here is an AMAZING point (and Boofhead - you learnt to fly here didn't you?)

Military Controllers at Pearce use EXACTLY some of the procedures you suggest - in that in the Pearce training areas - they only provide IFR separation between IFR aircraft - and provide traffic info on the VFR's. Only between military aircraft it's true - but they do use the rules. (How do I know this? I was Senior Air Traffic COntrol officer at Pearce during the ATC part of my career)



And DIck, I last actively controlled in 1992, and left the military (after numerous staff positions outside the ATC category) in 2007.

[Dick Smith]

Chaser - Wow! I can see why you post anonymously! You wouldn’t want to disclose your real name given your obvious lack of understanding of something really simple.

Chaser, I am talking about target resolution procedures in Class C airspace.

No, I don’t want the airspace to be changed to Class D. I simply want us to look at highly proven international procedures for Class C airspace.

I know set in concrete in most minds is that the separation standard in Class C shall be three nautical miles – remember, it was no doubt written in the Bible or the Koran and it’s an act of faith from now on for most of you.

But in fact, what happens if another country shows that a different separation standard is very safe when visual conditions exist? Why shouldn’t we at least look at that standard, especially if it allows a country to save costs and be more competitive in an international marketplace?


NTZ – you seem to have misunderstood. I am not wrong in stating that the US has target resolution procedures in Class C terminal airspace. It is a fact.

Yes, I could be wrong in stating that I believe our controllers could take on such responsibilities here and provide high levels of safety. That is why the issue should be looked at and discussed.

As an example of procedures that have been embraced appreciatively and not “thrust upon them” would be the change in separation “standards” in primary control zones.

Up until about 1984 or thereabouts, controllers had to separate VFR aircraft in “primary” control zones with the same standard as IFR aircraft and as if they were all in cloud. It took nearly three years of hard work fighting resistance to change to bring in the international procedure where VFR aircraft are not separated from VFR aircraft in that type of airspace.

As I have stated before on this thread, even though there was great resistance to change and people were saying that VFR aircraft would hit VFR aircraft if they were not separated by air traffic control by at least three nautical miles, in fact this did not happen.

No, controllers and pilots were not forced to adapt, although I do remember an hilarious article by Tom Ballantyne in the Sydney Morning Herald where the Qantas Chief Pilot stated they were opposed to this new separation technique. Of course I was able to point out it was only between VFR aircraft, and as Qantas don’t normally fly VFR it didn’t affect them in any way. But it was a great example of resistance to change.

If you would like me to, I will find the article from one of my old scrapbooks, scan it and place it on here. It will be a great example of concrete-mindedness.


Peuce – I am not into the technicalities of how it works, but I will make an enquiry with one of my US ATC friends and get the exact details for you. I would have thought as an air traffic controller you may have done that in the last twenty-five years, i.e. wouldn’t it be great to know what your colleagues do in other countries, especially if they use a better system. It’s obvious that you have never asked.

One thing I can assure you is that in flying in US Class C airspace in similar circumstances, an aircraft would not be held.

As I have pointed out before, when the Williamtown airspace becomes a C-TAF, aircraft do not hold in the light aircraft lane when IFR aircraft are on an approach to runway 12. I have never even heard an airline pilot ask for a VFR aircraft in the lane to hold. That would be completely stupid, as they are miles apart.


max1 – no, it’s not quite

Dick wonders why we can’t use other procedures that allow him to transit

It’s actually “Dick wonders why we can’t use procedures that have been proven safe in the United States and Canada”.

max1, I am sure you agree this is slightly different to your simplistic explanation.

Under no circumstances do I want the controller to “bend a rule”. I am totally opposed to that. I simply want proven regulations that are safe and can facilitate traffic without unnecessary holding and financial waste.


NTZ – what you leave out of your examples is the more likely case where a single-engine aircraft is held orbiting over a rough ocean and a family of four or five are drowned when an engine failure occurs. Isn’t that an important part of the equation? If it can be shown that there is a proven safe system that allows the aircraft on approach to have very high levels of safety even if it does a missed approach, and also for single-engine aircraft not to be held over water, wouldn’t it be logical to look at it?


Boofhead – how right you are. When I headed off on my world flight in 1982, I left Australia thinking we were the leaders in the world. It was after the first few days of flying across the United States after departing from Fort Worth that I realised we were thirty years out of date. It was a classical example of a bureaucracy that had lost its way and was not updating to modern, proven procedures.

Since then, some of the procedures have been forcefully updated, but there are still many which no-one has ever looked at and copied the best that is proven.

I compare our airspace system with the Nomad aircraft – undeniably one of the worst aircraft that has ever been built in the world, whereas I compare the airspace system of the United States with a Boeing 747. I know what aircraft I would prefer to be flying in.

Posters on this thread would be justifying that a Nomad aircraft was better because it was built here, and we know best and we know everything, whereas most rational people would prefer to go with the 747 – mainly because it has had squillions of dollars spent on it, it operates in a highly litigious society and it has had a very large number of flight hours to prove the resultant safety levels.

I know which aircraft I would prefer to fly in.


Jack Ranga – you say

The problem with Dick a few of us have, is he attacks the people least able to effect change. It's friggin' easy to attack the 'weakest link'

Jack, have you actually read my posts? I think not. I have made it clear that I do not blame the workplace controllers. In fact, I have consistently said they are as good as any in the world. I blame the decision makers or, more to the point, non-decision makers above them. Don’t you understand this? How can I make it clearer? It is the military hierarchy who should be making these decisions but who don’t, and they are abrogating their responsibilities to the people who report to them.

One day, I can assure you, we will get someone competent in charge of military air traffic control and very quickly they will look around the world, copy the best that is proven, incorporate it with what we do here, and our controllers will be treated as professionals for the first time.

[The Chaser]

Boof

Come now, lets not be precious. Much of the change agenda in aviation administration (including ATM) in the last 20+ years has been a mix of false starts, half measures, and attempted transplantation of ‘selective’ aspects of O/S systems.

The problem has been and remains the difference between ‘perception’ and that of ‘reality’. Sure, the US has a system that by and large works OK given the traffic volumes they move. It is however unrealistic to expect to transplant that system in to Australia without the bones as well. For example:-

The US system is funded via the public purse. It has and continues to pay for the massive infrastructure that supports that more fluid arrangement i.e. Massive PSR and SSR radar coverage (being augmented with ADS-B), Massive ATC and Flight Service networks (the number of square miles each individual US controller positions manage below A100 is a fraction of that of Australian Sectors and TCU’s), the cost of which would, to quote you:-

aviation would come to a crawl

Or, become so expensive, only ticketholders would fly (where User Pays is King i.e. Australia)

Airport infrastructure, etc etc …the list goes on, and on. It is all well and good to suggest copying good O/S practices, but it requires a knowledge of what the practices actually are, in different airspace volumes, and what is required to facilitate that, and if those practices and their foundation is viable in a different country with different mechanisms of support.

Emotive calls such as yours:

and thousands of people would die

are nothing more than playing to an uninformed public to generate interest, and scare Pollies who in the main have no clue about the specifics of aviation or ATM, tis’ the last line of attack often used by one media tart when all other ‘I believe’ or ‘they tell me’ arguments have run aground.

The reality is that Australia has in the main been very lucky in recent years that we have not had a major hull loss (as has happened O/S in places Like the US). I’m am not referring to operations within our long established CTA/R areas.. no, I say lucky because, much of that record is down to nothing more than last-line risk minimisation, by ATC who do what they can, when they can, and by our pilot fraternity (wanting to stay alive) most of whom, it seems, have to date have run the gauntlet of OCTA operations (in large, fast aircraft, with pretty ordinary visual look-out ability) thankfully without requiring new strides and a stiff whiskey after landing. There are however more than a few instances of where luck has come perilously close to running out (ATSB data on ACAS RA and NMAC). Why has this OCTA roll of the dice been allowed to continue?

The number of areas where large passenger transport aircraft operate without ATC (and/or synthetic) assistance in this country is, well IMHO, a national disgrace. This is where the focus should be.

It is incongruous on the one hand to suggest ”thousands of people would die”, and in the same breath, argue that Mr Smith is suggesting good change by having radar controllers in a busy terminal area, allow aircraft position symbols to come within a whisker of each other in VMC, and at the same time call it “a procedure” that for all intents and purposes, amounts to a different classification of airspace i.e. Class D But that is not the rub, the rub is, that even in class D, two aircraft would not EVER be put in to such an unsafe proximity, and certainly not without a visual standard (pilot to pilot or ATC applied) and full consideration of other potentially fatal aspects such as wake turbulence.

What is invariably left out of these discussions is that the rule set for particular airspace volumes must be set for the worse case average. In other words, Class C is generally utilised where traffic volumes and mix (including any other pertinent complexities) dictate that a minimum separation (rule set) threshold is set to ensure that both pilots and ATC have the required distance buffers and time to manage conflicts without the temptation to run things too tight and then find themselves in an irretrievable situation due other traffic distraction, frequency loading, etc etc … All aspects of the infrustructure available must be considered in determining how close things can be run .... the bigger picture!!!

How did we get to this point?

Australia, and dare I say it, more particularly, it’s ATM regulatory function (nowadays CASA) has been subject to continual interference from political expediency agenda’s (cost cutting, slash, burn, government profit/return, better do what he says otherwise we will cop a flogging in the court of public opinion etc etc) for more than 20+ years. Ambling from this direction to that, more often that not as a result of the foot stamping of a few who have a soapbox, the ear of pollies, whom invariably have one eye permanently, firmly fixed on re-election, and will do almost anything to avoid a public stoush with a media tart throwing plastic mud.

It has got to stop.

A far as Airspace management goes, the regulator has a clear set of processes for addressing flight safety risks in an appropriate manner. It (CASA) must be left, unhindered, to do its job with industry, which, despite the frustration we all feel for much of what emanates from that dam’d building in Can’tberra, it would do the job (hand in hand with the various industry sectors) properly, in an objective, transparent, and proper way if those responsible were given a threat free environment in which to do it. It is too easy (and convienient) to ear (and keyboard) bash the folks at CASA (OAR), the problem exists above them, way above them.

There is no way this debacle would still be going on after 20+ years were it not a tug of war between those that operate and fly within the system, and those that think it is a Lego set they can play with as they see fit.

So no, this is not about ‘Tall Poppies’, this about resolution of a festering problem that has gone on WAY, WAY to long!

[scran]

Dick - the last para of your post says it all.

"One day, I can assure you, we will get someone competent in charge of military air traffic control and very quickly they will look around the world, copy the best that is proven, incorporate it with what we do here, and our controllers will be treated as professionals for the first time. "



How many times do you need to be told that Military ATC conform the the accepted international practices, as designed by ICAO, that are agreed to by the Australian representative to that organisation (ICAO). That is - Air Services (or it may be CASA now - again, I've not been directly involved in ATC since the early 90's).


Military ATC cannot adopt a different set of rules to that of Air Services - can you imagine the pandamonium that would ensure then???

For god's sake - WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!

GET REAL!

[peuce]

Dick,

I am not into the technicalities of how it works, but I will make an enquiry with one of my US ATC friends and get the exact details for you

You are trying to force a procedure on a whole country, yet ... you're "not into the technicalities of how it works". If I walked in CASA's office and tried to do the same, I would be laughed out of court. If it's so right for us ... show us what IT is.

This only goes to support The Chaser's point that ATM in Australia is being developed by Political Interference, not Technical Analysis.

I would have thought as an air traffic controller you may have done that in the last twenty-five years, i.e. wouldn’t it be great to know what your colleagues do in other countries, especially if they use a better system. It’s obvious that you have never asked.

Another attempted attack on the man, not the argument.

1. I have never been an ATC .... bastards!
2. If I was, I wouldn't rely on what my mate overseas brags about doing or not doing, after a few beers at the bar ... I'd want to see the regulations. As you said, we don't want to bend the rules.

When you can show me the regulated procedure (which I have been unable to find) then I'll happily consider it, in relation to our environment.

P.S. Do helicopters only have engine failures over water? ... scaredy cats!

[boofhead]

I see someone pointing out how the system does not work as well as it should and the result is an attempt to shout him down, including personal attacks. Dick is not criticising the persons who are manning the ATC desk, but the system. If you stopped shouting long enough, you might even come to agree with him.

[peuce]

Hey Boofhead,

I think you need to get out more often ... and read some of the posts on here a bit closer.

And don't worry, Dick'll be alright. He's a tough customer and he's frequented these here parts for many moons. He can definitely take care of himself.

We would treat Dick with more respect if only he would argue with facts.
He continues to frustrate us with rhetoric, heresay, I belives, I have been told ... blah, blah, blah

Aviation IS an exact science ... safety depends on it. We welcome well researched and well presented logical argument here, at any time.

[NTZ]

Dick,

Yes, I could be wrong in stating that I believe our controllers could take on such responsibilities here and provide high levels of safety.

That was what I am referring to (although the slant you put on it is interesting; implying perhaps that the controllers currently do not provide high levels of safety) and to date, nobody here has actually argued against trialling/examining new procedures. It's the motivation and the methodology of your arguments that concern me.

Rather than tout the benefits of such reform, you chose to target those who apparently oppose them and label them as incompetents. Additionally you specifically target the Military for complying with standards laid out in the Manual of Air Traffic Services, an Australian document, not a military one. What about AsA? Are they incompetent too?

peuce is absolutely right. If you actually produced an argument based on real and relevant facts, this thread would have taken a different turn.

In response to your example provided, I have no qualms admitting when I am wrong - I stand corrected. Can't argue with facts.

[Jack Ranga]

Comprehension as well as spelling is a problem here

[C-change]

Hey Dick, I'm back,

What can I say, I'm a fisherman and I have taken the bait.

If you really, really, want to introduce your Class C procedure, go right ahead. You know what you need to do to get it done, yet your still here bleating to us that our minds are closed etc and unwilling to adopt change. Nothing could be further from the truth. Personally, I'm all for change, if thats what industry wants, thats fine, I'll do it, as will most controllers. In fact, we usually get told to deal with it and get on with the new procedure.

Scran mentioned earlier some of the Pearce proceudres. This is one of many examples that shows that you don't understand everything about Defence. AsA and CASA (as you know) make the rules for civil aircraft. The Manual of Air Traffic Services (joint MIL Civil document) has a paragraph that allows the commander of a Military base to reduce the separation standards in MATS, at their base. This allows the Military to be more flexible in many situations based on aircraft and airspace than you can imagine. There are too many examples to list but at Willy for example the Tower controller can land as many FA18s on the RWY as he or she can fit. Sight and follow, and assigning pilot visual separtion occurs everyday around the country, both Mil and Civil airspace. There are additional waivers to Wake Turb, IFR instrument training with VFR procedures. You would love it !

So please stop going on about ATC and in particular Military ATC having closed minds. If you want the Class C radar service changed, go ahead and prove to industry thats its safe and efficient.

[peuce]

Boofhead,

It's Friday arvo and you've got me going now ...

I learned to fly in Aus and bought into the myth that it is done better there in every way, and the safety record is the best in the world. Since leaving and flying almost everywhere else in the world I have learned that this is not true. More regulation does not make flying safer, just as more government does not make life better.

Well, you're a slow learner ... we've known that for ages. You won't find many on here arguing with you. You may find some (including me) who think that we HAD a pretty good system, but it's been so bastardised over the last 20 years that no one quite knows where it's at. And don't start us on Regulatory Reform ! But that's in the hands of our masters ... not much we can do.

We, as an Industry, have adopted, and adapted to, multiple changes, false starts and rollbacks over the last 20 years ... so don't try playing the " resistance to change" card with us. We have accepted so much bad change that we've finally drawn a line in the sand ... you want to make more changes ... then show us the prepared proposal first.

What does it look like?
What problem does it solve?
How will it improve safety?
How will it improve efficiency?
Do we have the resources for it?
Emma chisit?

If you (that is, anyone) can't answer these questions satisfactorily ... then bugger off and come back when you can

[boofhead]

You have a good point. I still hold my Aus licences and am frankly afraid to come back to fly in Aus because it has changed so much since I was there and most of it for the worst. I fly mainly in Alaska and it is about as free as I can imagine it can be, except when the pollies come around with their TFRs. I fly single pilot IFR in multi turbines, skis and floats in 60 year old airplanes, teach advanced Garmin g100 procedures etc all with just a licence and instrument/instructor rating. I fly Cessna 150 airplanes with only a VOR and VHF radio in the same airspace the 747s rumble around in, at night and in cloud.
I keep my instrument rating current simply by using it, and can take a guy who has just bought a taildragger neither of us has ever flown before and teach him how to do it safely without any flying school or club or CASA being involved.
The point has already been made that we mix IFR and VFR, all types and speeds right inside a major international airport without any fuss or hassle. Even LAX will allow GA airplanes, and they have a great corridor right over the top that is free to use without any ATC participation, just a transponder and a radio call. The US is also a member of ICAO, yet the two systems are chalk and cheese.
Why is aviation so much easier here? Because the pilots want it that way.
The cost of GA is borne by the users in the form of a gas tax, not the convoluted fee structure you labour under.
We fly with terrain and weather not seen in Aus, yet we maintain a level of safety that, even taking Alaska into account, is better than that in Aus. Is not safety the goal? (yes I know that safety stats are not much use, since the measuring is different and no-one really knows how much flying is done so they are not much better than educated guesses).
If the way it is done in Aus was better, other countries would be copying you, but they don't because it is not better. How much do you spend as a GA pilot renewing your instrument rating or instructor rating every year? Can you even afford to hold the rating? How much does your medical cost? Do you feel safer or better because of the money you pay?
So yeah, I can give you an example of a better system, one that works in a state the same geographical size as Aus with a population of less than a million people, and also in some of the world's most busy airspace, successfully and relatively safely for less cost. Even with its faults it is way ahead of what you suffer with, but until you see that, nothing will change.
I know Dick can handle the aggro, he probably delights in it, but my point is that you should not shoot the messenger; if there are to be changes they will not come from the top. Argue the point, not the man.

[Jack Ranga]

I think you're missing one big point here boofhead, aviation in the States is treated as national infrastructure, there's a big difference between user pays (dis-proportionatly) and national infrastructure. And the fuel tax certainly wouldn't pay for everything.

The FIRST thing that Dick needs to fix is that. If CASA can run round willy-nilly charging you for EVERYTHING they do, the're going to keep doing it aren't they? And they are going to invent new things to charge you for aren't they? If they had to justify to Government every cent they spent under the previous system then maybe they'd think about what they spent.

CASA are the ones making aviation un-affordable followed by the disgraceful sell off of the airports I used to own. I see some of them are now 'begging' for aircraft owners to come back with freebie month deals coz we're all rich aren't we!

Fix that Dick, start at the head first, the poor plonker at the end of the system can't do anything for you I'm afraid.

[boofhead]

I'll give that to you, no government will willingly give up control/money. But if there was enough pressure from the users, maybe? Didn't New Zealand do it?