Williamtown Procedures
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
I take no pride in what I have said there.
I have been a military controller, at Williamtown,and Darwin when he was held, and in Air Force HQ. not just some ****-kicker - Late in my career (1975-2007) I was at one stage the second most senior officer in the branch....................
There are piles and piles of files full of bull**** from the man.
I distinctly remember, during he user pays debate, when I was tasked, in concert with some otehr guys, to draft a reply ot one of Dick's rants.
The draft told Dick, in pretty clear terms, that we had examined his argument, and that it didn't hold water, and that he should (in nice terms) piss off and get a new hobby.
DCAF walked out and said to me "while I agree with your sentiment, apparently Dick went to school with Bronwyn Bishop - or so we were told, as well as a major contributor to the Liberal Re-election fund - this being 1997 or 98 - who at that time was Minister for Defence Personnel, and that we didn't want to risk upsetting Dick - "so tone this down".
I have also been in Air Services in Canberra and heard Dick scream down the phone at Adrian Dumsa during Dick's ranting for the airspace change debate - then be told by Adrian that 15 minute later Dick rang all flowers and love.....the man may well be certifiable.........
Dick, we didn't lie to you - but you used your connections as such that you could NEVER be told how f**king stupid your letters to Air Force were.
Guys, thanks again for your support - I don't expect to see you on here after this.
PS - Dick - pm me if you dare, I'll give you a contact number, and Il'l explain a LOT of home truths to you.........
PPS - note Dick, that the Moderator's here use anonymous names. I no longer have ANY connection to military ATC, but cannot stomach your stupidity nor your attack on the military. If you must, ring the Chief or the Air Force - he knows who SCRAN is............(and has known me since we were both 17 years old)
I take no pride in what I have said there.
I have been a military controller, at Williamtown,and Darwin when he was held, and in Air Force HQ. not just some ****-kicker - Late in my career (1975-2007) I was at one stage the second most senior officer in the branch....................
There are piles and piles of files full of bull**** from the man.
I distinctly remember, during he user pays debate, when I was tasked, in concert with some otehr guys, to draft a reply ot one of Dick's rants.
The draft told Dick, in pretty clear terms, that we had examined his argument, and that it didn't hold water, and that he should (in nice terms) piss off and get a new hobby.
DCAF walked out and said to me "while I agree with your sentiment, apparently Dick went to school with Bronwyn Bishop - or so we were told, as well as a major contributor to the Liberal Re-election fund - this being 1997 or 98 - who at that time was Minister for Defence Personnel, and that we didn't want to risk upsetting Dick - "so tone this down".
I have also been in Air Services in Canberra and heard Dick scream down the phone at Adrian Dumsa during Dick's ranting for the airspace change debate - then be told by Adrian that 15 minute later Dick rang all flowers and love.....the man may well be certifiable.........
Dick, we didn't lie to you - but you used your connections as such that you could NEVER be told how f**king stupid your letters to Air Force were.
Guys, thanks again for your support - I don't expect to see you on here after this.
PS - Dick - pm me if you dare, I'll give you a contact number, and Il'l explain a LOT of home truths to you.........
PPS - note Dick, that the Moderator's here use anonymous names. I no longer have ANY connection to military ATC, but cannot stomach your stupidity nor your attack on the military. If you must, ring the Chief or the Air Force - he knows who SCRAN is............(and has known me since we were both 17 years old)
Last edited by scran; 30th Jan 2011 at 10:37.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Dick....I just went back to your original thread:
The problem? I think it was caused by an air ambulance aircraft on approach to 12.
So as I said, you have absolutely NO IDEA what the real situation was.......
f**king tool
The problem? I think it was caused by an air ambulance aircraft on approach to 12.
So as I said, you have absolutely NO IDEA what the real situation was.......
f**king tool
Thread Starter
Scran
Thanks for spending the time in answering the questions. I will PMU and have a talk on the phone.
Scran, what you don’t seem to answer is why we have to be so different. When I fly in the United States and Canada and other countries I am not held by the military – they facilitate movement of traffic when it’s close to a tower.
The controllers in the United States tell me that if their Class C airspace did not have tower airspace to the control zone boundary, that it would restrict operations tremendously and they would have to hold aircraft. That’s exactly what happens here.
You no doubt remember Brian Kendall when he was in a management position in air traffic control. He assured me that before he retired, he would have tower airspace at all Class C airports in Australia. In fact, he only succeeded with Canberra and a little bit of airspace from the Sydney tower to Cape Banks.
Your colleagues have explained that to handle decent amounts of traffic at Williamtown they have had to break the rules. However, if we had tower airspace which is proven in other countries, they would not have had to do this.
Simply what I am saying, Scran, is that expert professional controllers tell me that they could not operate Class C airspace and, in fact, Class B without the controller being responsible for the airspace to the control zone boundary.
Here we do not do this at a place like Williamtown, and aircraft are consistently held.
You amaze me when you say that a tower controller can be responsible for the visual separation of traffic and, at the same time, be administering a radar standard between IFR and VFR aircraft. This is pretty-well unique in the world – especially when there for civilian operations – which Williamtown often opens solely for.
If you look back on the original airspace plans proposals you will see there was a definite plan to go to tower airspace at all of these Class C airports and the military control zones like Williamtown and Sale.
Clearly this was an accepted proposal to go ahead with and strongly supported by Brian Kendall with his years of experience, but you now don’t seem to support this, preferring to support the status quo.
In relation to any letters I wrote to the military, all you had to do was write back and explain the truth. For example, once I wrote and asked why Williamtown does not have tower airspace to the control zone boundary as they do in other leading aviation countries. I simply never received an answer to that one, because I think people probably looked at it and thought “that would be a good idea, it would facilitate the movement of traffic, however that will require change and that’s a helluva lot of work and there will be these concrete minded troglodytes who will run a campaign against it”.
Then, Scran, I don’t think the problem had anything to do with it being an air ambulance flight. I have been held when there is a 182 aircraft operating to the runway.
If the air ambulance flight had used the terminology “cancel IFR” when they were on the visual approach, can you explain if I would have been held under those circumstances? i.e. two VFR aircraft. I somehow think not, but there is no leadership shown in telling aircraft when it is sensible to cancel IFR so traffic does not have to be held in risky circumstances.
I can understand why you are so angry – it just confirms what I believe, and that is the senior people in the military lack leadership qualities. Otherwise, they would have openly examined the target resolution procedures and tower airspace, and provided a simple official explanation – in the last twenty years – on why it can’t be used here.
They haven’t done this because I believe any good inquiry into this would show it should be the way to go.
Thanks for spending the time in answering the questions. I will PMU and have a talk on the phone.
Scran, what you don’t seem to answer is why we have to be so different. When I fly in the United States and Canada and other countries I am not held by the military – they facilitate movement of traffic when it’s close to a tower.
The controllers in the United States tell me that if their Class C airspace did not have tower airspace to the control zone boundary, that it would restrict operations tremendously and they would have to hold aircraft. That’s exactly what happens here.
You no doubt remember Brian Kendall when he was in a management position in air traffic control. He assured me that before he retired, he would have tower airspace at all Class C airports in Australia. In fact, he only succeeded with Canberra and a little bit of airspace from the Sydney tower to Cape Banks.
Your colleagues have explained that to handle decent amounts of traffic at Williamtown they have had to break the rules. However, if we had tower airspace which is proven in other countries, they would not have had to do this.
Simply what I am saying, Scran, is that expert professional controllers tell me that they could not operate Class C airspace and, in fact, Class B without the controller being responsible for the airspace to the control zone boundary.
Here we do not do this at a place like Williamtown, and aircraft are consistently held.
You amaze me when you say that a tower controller can be responsible for the visual separation of traffic and, at the same time, be administering a radar standard between IFR and VFR aircraft. This is pretty-well unique in the world – especially when there for civilian operations – which Williamtown often opens solely for.
If you look back on the original airspace plans proposals you will see there was a definite plan to go to tower airspace at all of these Class C airports and the military control zones like Williamtown and Sale.
Clearly this was an accepted proposal to go ahead with and strongly supported by Brian Kendall with his years of experience, but you now don’t seem to support this, preferring to support the status quo.
In relation to any letters I wrote to the military, all you had to do was write back and explain the truth. For example, once I wrote and asked why Williamtown does not have tower airspace to the control zone boundary as they do in other leading aviation countries. I simply never received an answer to that one, because I think people probably looked at it and thought “that would be a good idea, it would facilitate the movement of traffic, however that will require change and that’s a helluva lot of work and there will be these concrete minded troglodytes who will run a campaign against it”.
Then, Scran, I don’t think the problem had anything to do with it being an air ambulance flight. I have been held when there is a 182 aircraft operating to the runway.
If the air ambulance flight had used the terminology “cancel IFR” when they were on the visual approach, can you explain if I would have been held under those circumstances? i.e. two VFR aircraft. I somehow think not, but there is no leadership shown in telling aircraft when it is sensible to cancel IFR so traffic does not have to be held in risky circumstances.
I can understand why you are so angry – it just confirms what I believe, and that is the senior people in the military lack leadership qualities. Otherwise, they would have openly examined the target resolution procedures and tower airspace, and provided a simple official explanation – in the last twenty years – on why it can’t be used here.
They haven’t done this because I believe any good inquiry into this would show it should be the way to go.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Don't bother - I'm not going to talk to you - there would be no point.
Tower having airspace would not have helped this situation. No way in the world......................
I was a professional controller, and I could quite easily control aircraft as a Tower Controller without having airspace to the Control Zone Boundary.
Just let it go..............................
Don't bother - I'm not going to talk to you - there would be no point.
Tower having airspace would not have helped this situation. No way in the world......................
I was a professional controller, and I could quite easily control aircraft as a Tower Controller without having airspace to the Control Zone Boundary.
Just let it go..............................
If the air ambulance flight had used the terminology “cancel IFR” when they were on the visual approach, can you explain if I would have been held under those circumstances? i.e. two VFR aircraft. I somehow think not, but there is no leadership shown in telling aircraft when it is sensible to cancel IFR so traffic does not have to be held in risky circumstances.
I can tell you there are two chances of me changing to VFR just to facilitate you (unless I can see you and you do what I require): None and Buckley's.
there is no leadership shown in telling aircraft when it is sensible to cancel IFR so traffic does not have to be held in risky circumstances.
That statement is so wrong on so many levels of intelligence...
To be clear..you still want Class D airspace and you want that visual class D tower to tell pilots when it is safe to cancel IFR....to facilitate traffic????
Why do you have this problem that the tower MUST only look after the three miles around the tower and nothing else? Does that mean you want a full approach service at class D as well?
Smith....how many times since the AOPA and the RAAF had their little chat have you been held at WLM?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disk said
Well be amazed Disk, because that is what EVERY radar equipped tower in the world uses it for, until an ATC visual and/or runway standard is achieved.
Like the years of response letter writing to you (from most agencies), with truth, techical reasoning, etc etc. You know, the ones you then ignore, or publish, often then abusing the author for not agreeing with you.
Bit like the truth you have been provided in this thread ..... IGNORED!
You have a closed mind, set in concrete!
You amaze me when you say that a tower controller can be responsible for the visual separation of traffic and, at the same time, be administering a radar standard between IFR and VFR aircraft. This is pretty-well unique in the world – especially when there for civilian operations – which Williamtown often opens solely for.
In relation to any letters I wrote to the military, all you had to do was write back and explain the truth
Bit like the truth you have been provided in this thread ..... IGNORED!
You have a closed mind, set in concrete!
Thread Starter
Scran - It looks a little bit as though your mind is closed. You state
Scran, that is probably because the approach controller was holding the aircraft orbiting endlessly over the ocean at the wreck or at Nobby’s.
Capn Bloggs – if cancelling IFR and being given traffic on another aeroplane which is about five miles away at 500 feet over the water when you are coming in from the west does not give adequate “protection”, how would the same air ambulance pilot and people like yourself fly every day into non-controlled airfields in Australia?
As I mentioned previously in this thread – when the Williamtown control zone is not active and it is a C-TAF, I have never once heard of an airline pilot requesting that a VFR pilot hold somewhere in the lane.
Traffic information is passed and in this particular case the air ambulance aircraft would have headed in and landed and the VFR aircraft would have headed up the coast at 500 feet.
You seem to think that once air traffic control is involved that we must go to some type of archaic, kindergarten-type level of separation.
ozbusdriver – no, I don’t want Class D airspace. I simply want Class C as it is used internationally where the tower “owns” the airspace to the first control boundary step.
The AOPA meeting with the RAAF and their little chat has had no measurable effect. All that was about the RAAF hierarchy working out ways to operate the system more efficiently without changing any rule or 1930s regulations. That is just not possible!
By the way, no-one has answered a most important question.
At the present time when the airspace is activated at Williamtown for some civilian traffic it is normally activated to a 25 nautical miles radius at ground level. Why is this necessary when Sydney airport operates twenty-four hours per day with ground level airspace only going to 4 nautical miles in the east and 8.5 nautical miles in other directions?
I was a professional controller, and I could quite easily control aircraft as a Tower Controller without having airspace to the Control Zone Boundary
Capn Bloggs – if cancelling IFR and being given traffic on another aeroplane which is about five miles away at 500 feet over the water when you are coming in from the west does not give adequate “protection”, how would the same air ambulance pilot and people like yourself fly every day into non-controlled airfields in Australia?
As I mentioned previously in this thread – when the Williamtown control zone is not active and it is a C-TAF, I have never once heard of an airline pilot requesting that a VFR pilot hold somewhere in the lane.
Traffic information is passed and in this particular case the air ambulance aircraft would have headed in and landed and the VFR aircraft would have headed up the coast at 500 feet.
You seem to think that once air traffic control is involved that we must go to some type of archaic, kindergarten-type level of separation.
ozbusdriver – no, I don’t want Class D airspace. I simply want Class C as it is used internationally where the tower “owns” the airspace to the first control boundary step.
The AOPA meeting with the RAAF and their little chat has had no measurable effect. All that was about the RAAF hierarchy working out ways to operate the system more efficiently without changing any rule or 1930s regulations. That is just not possible!
By the way, no-one has answered a most important question.
At the present time when the airspace is activated at Williamtown for some civilian traffic it is normally activated to a 25 nautical miles radius at ground level. Why is this necessary when Sydney airport operates twenty-four hours per day with ground level airspace only going to 4 nautical miles in the east and 8.5 nautical miles in other directions?
how would the same air ambulance pilot and people like yourself fly every day into non-controlled airfields in Australia?
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
I worked as a Tower Controller at Williamtown, Butterworth, Darwin and Amberley. At EACH location I controlled without "owning" the airspace to the Control Zone boundary. At Williamtown quite happily with aircraft going up the lane. As I stated, during part of my time at Willy, Tower controlled the lane..........
I even provided the combined Approach/Tower service from the Tower and let aircraft up and down the lane with aircraft in the circuit!!!
In my total of 5 years as a controller at Willy, I must have controlled almost a 1000 transits of the lane. I probably remember holding 2 or 3 due to Instrument approaches to Runway 30.
Oh - now it's the first control boundary step? (your answer to Ozbusdriver).
Can you please make up your mind?
Willy doesn't own to 25NM in every direction - stop generalising.........
My mind is only closed on one subject - that you are - well, Ive already told you..........a couple of times.............
I worked as a Tower Controller at Williamtown, Butterworth, Darwin and Amberley. At EACH location I controlled without "owning" the airspace to the Control Zone boundary. At Williamtown quite happily with aircraft going up the lane. As I stated, during part of my time at Willy, Tower controlled the lane..........
I even provided the combined Approach/Tower service from the Tower and let aircraft up and down the lane with aircraft in the circuit!!!
In my total of 5 years as a controller at Willy, I must have controlled almost a 1000 transits of the lane. I probably remember holding 2 or 3 due to Instrument approaches to Runway 30.
Oh - now it's the first control boundary step? (your answer to Ozbusdriver).
Can you please make up your mind?
Willy doesn't own to 25NM in every direction - stop generalising.........
My mind is only closed on one subject - that you are - well, Ive already told you..........a couple of times.............
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
scran
It is all he has 
Here is some facts in support of 'our' fine military and what they do with airspace
Comparisons
Let’s take a wee trip to Miramar
SkyVector: Flight Planning / Aeronautical Charts
Note:-
- The runway/s orientation
- The size of the SFC to A100 areas around the MCAS
- The adjacent A018 to A100 areas outside the SFC CTR
- The distance to the coast, and the CTA base at the coast
- The other airports and airspace around Miramar
San Diego Int’l (south of Miramar) (similar position and runway orientation with the coast as YWLM)
Note:-
- Its proximity to the coast
- The lack of any coastal lane
- The CTR steps east and west
- The runway orientation
- Where the VFR corridor over the top is, and the altitude requirements.
- The approach and departure tracks to and from
Now try (why anyone would want to is beyond comprehension) and apply any of that to YWLM, especially considering they are not only moving Mil Jets.
Comparatively, considering YWLM is all things to all people in that area, rather than Disk whining like an A grade Pratt, how about he show some appreciation for the military, especially considering the number and complexity of aviation activities they juggle as a matter of course, accommodating folks as and when they can (particularly given the airport layout and geographical position).
As for Disk's new Richmond whinge
Seeing as most proximate military airspace in Australia is adminsitered exactly the same way as in the US, maybe he thinks the US military leadership are suffering from a
as well
Tis a tool!
Willy doesn't own to 25NM in every direction - stop generalising
Here is some facts in support of 'our' fine military and what they do with airspace
Comparisons
Let’s take a wee trip to Miramar
SkyVector: Flight Planning / Aeronautical Charts
Note:-
- The runway/s orientation
- The size of the SFC to A100 areas around the MCAS
- The adjacent A018 to A100 areas outside the SFC CTR
- The distance to the coast, and the CTA base at the coast
- The other airports and airspace around Miramar
San Diego Int’l (south of Miramar) (similar position and runway orientation with the coast as YWLM)
Note:-
- Its proximity to the coast
- The lack of any coastal lane
- The CTR steps east and west
- The runway orientation
- Where the VFR corridor over the top is, and the altitude requirements.
- The approach and departure tracks to and from
Now try (why anyone would want to is beyond comprehension) and apply any of that to YWLM, especially considering they are not only moving Mil Jets.
Comparatively, considering YWLM is all things to all people in that area, rather than Disk whining like an A grade Pratt, how about he show some appreciation for the military, especially considering the number and complexity of aviation activities they juggle as a matter of course, accommodating folks as and when they can (particularly given the airport layout and geographical position).
As for Disk's new Richmond whinge
I suggest you look at Richmond airspace on the current VTC
complete lack of decision-making ability
Tis a tool!
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents - thank you for the supportive PM's.....................
But I don't need encouragement to continue
Oh - in an earlier post, I called Dick a Tool. For this I unreservedly apologise.
As my wife pointed out - tools are useful
But I don't need encouragement to continue
Oh - in an earlier post, I called Dick a Tool. For this I unreservedly apologise.
As my wife pointed out - tools are useful
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skynews said
Because he has the contacts and ability to convince those in positions of authority, that his ideas are worlds best, when people who do this job for a living tell him otherwise. I little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Dick,
I'll ask again for the fifth time, why wont you answer my questions ?
I have attempted to answer your questions whilst providing you with plenty of info.
I wont be holding my breath waiting for you to provide any answers, so I have two suggestions for you.
1. Next time you are held at Nobbys try this,
"App, DIK, holding over water with the current sea state is not acceptable, request the coastal lane at 3000' (or not above a level) or direct to the field to overfly", or
2. Go and see your mates in Governement and convince them to get rid of ATC. I'm more than happy to accept a redundancy payout and go find another job. Then you will have your Aviation Utopia.
Why do professionals pilots and ATC spend time arguing with private pilots?
Dick,
I'll ask again for the fifth time, why wont you answer my questions ?
I have attempted to answer your questions whilst providing you with plenty of info.
I wont be holding my breath waiting for you to provide any answers, so I have two suggestions for you.
1. Next time you are held at Nobbys try this,
"App, DIK, holding over water with the current sea state is not acceptable, request the coastal lane at 3000' (or not above a level) or direct to the field to overfly", or
2. Go and see your mates in Governement and convince them to get rid of ATC. I'm more than happy to accept a redundancy payout and go find another job. Then you will have your Aviation Utopia.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 62
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because he has the contacts and ability to convince those in positions of authority, that his ideas are worlds best, when people who do this job for a living tell him otherwise. I little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a fair question Sky
As C-change suggests (I agree), I guess these 'discovery' threads are more about educating those in the food chain that do not have the operational context, and would otherwise be inclined to buy the bulldust from this high profile PPL.
History has sadly proven this to be his playbook
, so I guess it is more than anything else about connecting the non-op food chain with the operational coalface, before any stupid decisions are made.
As we all know, reverse gears are less and less prevalent, the higher up the monkey tree things go
As C-change suggests (I agree), I guess these 'discovery' threads are more about educating those in the food chain that do not have the operational context, and would otherwise be inclined to buy the bulldust from this high profile PPL.
History has sadly proven this to be his playbook
, so I guess it is more than anything else about connecting the non-op food chain with the operational coalface, before any stupid decisions are made. As we all know, reverse gears are less and less prevalent, the higher up the monkey tree things go
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scran - Dick has been on about this for a while
(http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...lliamtown.html),
perhaps you can do us all a favour and (re) extend your invitation made on the 30th Jan to have a chat to him about this. Take a deep breath first ?!
Thanks !
Arrrj
(http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...lliamtown.html),
perhaps you can do us all a favour and (re) extend your invitation made on the 30th Jan to have a chat to him about this. Take a deep breath first ?!
(PS - Dick - pm me if you dare, I'll give you a contact number, and Il'l explain a LOT of home truths to you.........
).
).Arrrj
I guess these 'discovery' threads are more about educating those in the food chain that do not have the operational context, and would otherwise be inclined to buy the bulldust...
via Ex FSO GRIFFO, #140;
For those who MAY be interested.....
The Ryan TCAD 9900BX is avbl ex USA for USD$20,200 with the display....and for $19,200 without.
Not your 'everyday - impulse buy' purchase I would have thought
For those who MAY be interested.....
The Ryan TCAD 9900BX is avbl ex USA for USD$20,200 with the display....and for $19,200 without.
Not your 'everyday - impulse buy' purchase I would have thought
Here's some prices of traffic systems - http://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?...ze=25&s-page=2
.
I'm not convinced that giving this PPL the time of day doesn't give him "some" credibility
.