Channel 7 Sunday Night Program About VH-MDX
Hi ATO
What bad consequences would flow if, hypothetically, the airspace that is currently R578A, and at and above 5,000’ in R596, were instead Class E or G airspace after the boys and girls in blue have returned to the flight line? (And I realise why R596 is where it is.)
(BTW: I too "have been in the back seat of a Mach 2 fighter in a dog fight and a Hi Lo Hi mission and any other number of training scenarios." I don't remember any Mirages doing Mach 2 that close to Williamtown, back in 'the day'. The 18s sure don't now. But the speed of fast jets is not relevant to my question.)
What bad consequences would flow if, hypothetically, the airspace that is currently R578A, and at and above 5,000’ in R596, were instead Class E or G airspace after the boys and girls in blue have returned to the flight line? (And I realise why R596 is where it is.)
(BTW: I too "have been in the back seat of a Mach 2 fighter in a dog fight and a Hi Lo Hi mission and any other number of training scenarios." I don't remember any Mirages doing Mach 2 that close to Williamtown, back in 'the day'. The 18s sure don't now. But the speed of fast jets is not relevant to my question.)
Hi ATO and Username,
OK you need a huge amount of airspace for a two bit military operation. No problem with that.
My question is then, why isn't the same amount, or more airspace required in the USA where they have superpower military?
I note you blokes never address this, I don't expect an answer now.
OK you need a huge amount of airspace for a two bit military operation. No problem with that.
My question is then, why isn't the same amount, or more airspace required in the USA where they have superpower military?
I note you blokes never address this, I don't expect an answer now.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaba
How have we got to the saftey in aviation now. How because in aviation we work on preventative mentality. Gee maybe even safes your neck and a lot of people that are on the negative on this subject.
Maybe some of need a reality check on this. If this was a maintenance issue and five life's lost it would be investigated and more than likely a AD introduced why to prevent the same thing happening again.
Aussie bob.
I've work with these people in real life and they useless weather you won't to believe it or not. There are a lot of place that won't employ them in the industry. Why. Because of the reasons I've stated. In GA you can't be spoon feed. One bloke after 6 months of working on a pa 31 350 still didn't know what it was.
Cheers
How have we got to the saftey in aviation now. How because in aviation we work on preventative mentality. Gee maybe even safes your neck and a lot of people that are on the negative on this subject.
Maybe some of need a reality check on this. If this was a maintenance issue and five life's lost it would be investigated and more than likely a AD introduced why to prevent the same thing happening again.
Aussie bob.
I've work with these people in real life and they useless weather you won't to believe it or not. There are a lot of place that won't employ them in the industry. Why. Because of the reasons I've stated. In GA you can't be spoon feed. One bloke after 6 months of working on a pa 31 350 still didn't know what it was.
Cheers
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Centre
Age: 42
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Degenerated into another Dick bashing thread. Jaba, you going to post a picture of yourself up there too? Time I had another rest from Prune, maybe permanent this time.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One bloke after 6 months of working on a pa 31 350 still didn't know what it was.
LOL 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been poring through stuff here and elsewhere.
Isn't it true that MDX wasn't ever granted a clearance or the chance of a clearance through VMC Willy, and wasn't told that the reason was that Syd CTA was non VMC? I wonder when he was going to be told this piece of trivia? Once he was holding at MQD? I won't say that the infomation was "withheld " as all of this was happening in real time and under pressure but it wasn't passed on either. If getting through Willy wasn't such an issue, and it shouldn't be, the real reason would have been made apparent to the pilot of MDX?
Yes I do think that FIS should have said to MDX "Sydney is non VMC and clearance is not available. Landing at Willy is available" All over Red Rover.
I thank some of the contributors here and elsewhere for clarifying the position as regards Willy airspace. That was all news to me. (Would have been news to the pilot of MDX too.)
Just to make a few new friends, I quote in closing my good friend Wing Commander CJ Sugden DFC and Bar, who was flying a Mosquito the day that some controlled airspace was introduced in Australia, and thusly committed Australia's first VCA.
"They should have from the start been called Air Traffic Expeditors not Controllers so that they had a clearer understanding of their job."
Hey he said it, not I. Call him.
Isn't it true that MDX wasn't ever granted a clearance or the chance of a clearance through VMC Willy, and wasn't told that the reason was that Syd CTA was non VMC? I wonder when he was going to be told this piece of trivia? Once he was holding at MQD? I won't say that the infomation was "withheld " as all of this was happening in real time and under pressure but it wasn't passed on either. If getting through Willy wasn't such an issue, and it shouldn't be, the real reason would have been made apparent to the pilot of MDX?
Yes I do think that FIS should have said to MDX "Sydney is non VMC and clearance is not available. Landing at Willy is available" All over Red Rover.
I thank some of the contributors here and elsewhere for clarifying the position as regards Willy airspace. That was all news to me. (Would have been news to the pilot of MDX too.)
Just to make a few new friends, I quote in closing my good friend Wing Commander CJ Sugden DFC and Bar, who was flying a Mosquito the day that some controlled airspace was introduced in Australia, and thusly committed Australia's first VCA.
"They should have from the start been called Air Traffic Expeditors not Controllers so that they had a clearer understanding of their job."
Hey he said it, not I. Call him.
Isn't it true that MDX wasn't ever granted a clearance or the chance of a clearance through VMC Willy, and wasn't told that the reason was that Syd CTA was non VMC? I wonder when he was going to be told this piece of trivia? Once he was holding at MQD? I won't say that the infomation was "withheld " as all of this was happening in real time and under pressure but it wasn't passed on either. If getting through Willy wasn't such an issue, and it shouldn't be, the real reason would have been made apparent to the pilot of MDX?
No, that is not correct.
0854.20 FIS: "Mike Delta X-Ray, Sydney - I have checked with Sydney Control and they advise their airspace high level is non-VMC; a clearance at lower level may be available, I will advise, so would you prefer to take that or track now via Craven, Singleton?"
MDX: "Mike Delta X-Ray, I prefer to go coastal."
FIS: " <snip> ... remain outside controlled airspace, I will advise clearance as soon as possible."
0855.09 MDX: "Ah, Mike Delta X-Ray, we're coming up on it pretty shortly."
FIS: "Mike Delta X-Ray, roger, remain outside controlled airspace, I am attempting to get an airways clearance."
0856.00 MDX: "Mike Delta X-Ray, rather than wait for the clearance, we'll track via Craven, thank you."
MDX: "Mike Delta X-Ray, I prefer to go coastal."
FIS: " <snip> ... remain outside controlled airspace, I will advise clearance as soon as possible."
0855.09 MDX: "Ah, Mike Delta X-Ray, we're coming up on it pretty shortly."
FIS: "Mike Delta X-Ray, roger, remain outside controlled airspace, I am attempting to get an airways clearance."
0856.00 MDX: "Mike Delta X-Ray, rather than wait for the clearance, we'll track via Craven, thank you."
I strongly urge people to look at the online transcript themselves, so they know what was and what was not said. Dick is not telling you everything and is making errors when mentioning other bits.
Last edited by evilroy; 6th Jun 2014 at 00:53. Reason: Enhance formatting
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Sector 1 to FIS 5 "Before you go we are not VMC so clearance will not be available in controlled area."
FIS 5 "it won't?"
0853.19 Sector 1 to FIS 5 "It won't be available in my airspace anyway"
In the above exchange, Sydney FIS 5 asks Sydney Air Traffic Control Sector 1 (S1) for an onwards clearance for MDX to enter the Sydney controlled airspace after the Williamtown transit is complete. S1 responds that the clearance will not be available because Sydney control area is not Night VMC (Night Visual Meteorological Conditions - in other words a pilot must fly visually and clear of cloud). So the clearance issued by Williamtown Tower to Sydney Flight Service was never transmitted to the aircraft due to Sydney Sector 1 involvement. As a result, three minutes later at 0856, MDX, with no clearance issued by FIS 5 through Williamtown airspace, tracked from Taree to Craven then Singleton and into bad weather where some 45 minutes later the aircraft crashed in the Barrington Tops."
(Quotes from Harry Howard)
Lots of people peddling half truths on this site
FIS 5 "it won't?"
0853.19 Sector 1 to FIS 5 "It won't be available in my airspace anyway"
In the above exchange, Sydney FIS 5 asks Sydney Air Traffic Control Sector 1 (S1) for an onwards clearance for MDX to enter the Sydney controlled airspace after the Williamtown transit is complete. S1 responds that the clearance will not be available because Sydney control area is not Night VMC (Night Visual Meteorological Conditions - in other words a pilot must fly visually and clear of cloud). So the clearance issued by Williamtown Tower to Sydney Flight Service was never transmitted to the aircraft due to Sydney Sector 1 involvement. As a result, three minutes later at 0856, MDX, with no clearance issued by FIS 5 through Williamtown airspace, tracked from Taree to Craven then Singleton and into bad weather where some 45 minutes later the aircraft crashed in the Barrington Tops."
(Quotes from Harry Howard)
Lots of people peddling half truths on this site
Just plotted out this guys flightplan route. To end up anywhere near Barrington Tops from TRE requires a monster hdg change that even a newb should have realised he was going in the wrong direction...The only REAL tiger country on his route would have been around Mount McQuid...and it is a plateau. Not difficult but in a winter frontal system?????
At his planned altitude he would have been able to see WLM, no doubt. SO...How did he get from where he could see WLM to the other side of Barrington Tops? The only pertinent point from Mr Pike is the non reporting of the SY basin as Non VMC...no fault of the RAAF. That call...in hindsight of thirty plus years would have been a game changer. If the PIC knew the wx ahead of him then why the hell push past Port Macquarie. It would have made zip to get clearance via WLM because he would have crunched into bad wx getting past the Hawksbury river....at night...lots of lights but visible enough for safe visual? Why do it?....and... more importantly, How many times has this guy flew into BK? at night?
Dick, your crusade is just that, a crusade...go tilt at windmills!
At his planned altitude he would have been able to see WLM, no doubt. SO...How did he get from where he could see WLM to the other side of Barrington Tops? The only pertinent point from Mr Pike is the non reporting of the SY basin as Non VMC...no fault of the RAAF. That call...in hindsight of thirty plus years would have been a game changer. If the PIC knew the wx ahead of him then why the hell push past Port Macquarie. It would have made zip to get clearance via WLM because he would have crunched into bad wx getting past the Hawksbury river....at night...lots of lights but visible enough for safe visual? Why do it?....and... more importantly, How many times has this guy flew into BK? at night?
Dick, your crusade is just that, a crusade...go tilt at windmills!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Canberra, ACT, Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bill - You're a typical RAAF trained pilot Bill. You still remember your early lessons in groundschool - "Something wrong?? Where did ATC stuff-up?"
yr-right - It may not be an English class, but by the time I've hopefully managed to untangle what you're trying to get across, there have been another half dozen posts (all in readable and understandable English). Very frustrating - it's not only the spelling, but the actual words used, syntax and grammar that have to be decoded and a decision made on what I think you are trying to say. It takes quite a bit of time to decipher even the simplest post that you might make.
I don't very often post here but I do look in occasionally. However, when someone as noteworthy as Dick Smith choses to go in and bat publicly and maligns MY (being ex-WLM ATC, myself) personal knowledge and professional integrity, that's when I feel that I have to ask him to retract his implication that it was the RAAF WLM Controllers (not just expediters as there are also the aspects of safety, order, economy, flow of air traffic) who caused the accident when it was plainly clear for all to see (except for those intentionally wearing blinkers to promote a 'hobby horse'), that the specific base cause for this accident was plain PILOT ERROR. The pilot wasn't told to go that way - he chose to take that route. The RAAF didn't make him go that way! Civil ATC didn't make him go that way! Flight Service didn't make him go that way! The final decision basically comes down to ONE thing only - PILOT DECISION! He made the wrong choices. FULL STOP!
yr-right - It may not be an English class, but by the time I've hopefully managed to untangle what you're trying to get across, there have been another half dozen posts (all in readable and understandable English). Very frustrating - it's not only the spelling, but the actual words used, syntax and grammar that have to be decoded and a decision made on what I think you are trying to say. It takes quite a bit of time to decipher even the simplest post that you might make.
I don't very often post here but I do look in occasionally. However, when someone as noteworthy as Dick Smith choses to go in and bat publicly and maligns MY (being ex-WLM ATC, myself) personal knowledge and professional integrity, that's when I feel that I have to ask him to retract his implication that it was the RAAF WLM Controllers (not just expediters as there are also the aspects of safety, order, economy, flow of air traffic) who caused the accident when it was plainly clear for all to see (except for those intentionally wearing blinkers to promote a 'hobby horse'), that the specific base cause for this accident was plain PILOT ERROR. The pilot wasn't told to go that way - he chose to take that route. The RAAF didn't make him go that way! Civil ATC didn't make him go that way! Flight Service didn't make him go that way! The final decision basically comes down to ONE thing only - PILOT DECISION! He made the wrong choices. FULL STOP!
Hi CWO Geoff
What bad consequences would flow if, hypothetically, the airspace that is currently R578A, and at and above 5,000’ in R596, were instead Class E or G airspace after the boys and girls in blue have returned to the flight line? (And I realise why R596 is where it is.)
What bad consequences would flow if, hypothetically, the airspace that is currently R578A, and at and above 5,000’ in R596, were instead Class E or G airspace after the boys and girls in blue have returned to the flight line? (And I realise why R596 is where it is.)
Thread Starter
The only reason MDX required a clearance that night was because of the outdated design of the military airspace .
There were no fighter jets flying and there was simply no reason that the airspace should go to space. Have a look at the MTAZ dimensions in the UK at military bases with 80+ fighters - the top of the MATZ does not go above 3000' agl. And horror- it is normally in G airspace. See here.
What about Lemoore Naval Air Station in the USA . I am told Leemore is home to the US Navy's entire West Coast fighter/attack capability with approximately 175 active FAA-18 Hornets and FAA 18E Super Hornets.It is class D airspace 4.3 nm radius to 2700 ' with visual exempt class E above to 18,000'.
It is the RAAF ATC leadership in my experience that keep resisting any change to our 1940's airspace design.
As I said I feel sorry for the work face controllers who from my experience would like updated airspace and procedures.
There were no fighter jets flying and there was simply no reason that the airspace should go to space. Have a look at the MTAZ dimensions in the UK at military bases with 80+ fighters - the top of the MATZ does not go above 3000' agl. And horror- it is normally in G airspace. See here.
What about Lemoore Naval Air Station in the USA . I am told Leemore is home to the US Navy's entire West Coast fighter/attack capability with approximately 175 active FAA-18 Hornets and FAA 18E Super Hornets.It is class D airspace 4.3 nm radius to 2700 ' with visual exempt class E above to 18,000'.
It is the RAAF ATC leadership in my experience that keep resisting any change to our 1940's airspace design.
As I said I feel sorry for the work face controllers who from my experience would like updated airspace and procedures.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi There CWO Geoff,
I left the RAAF in 1969 and have done a few things since then.
I recall debating the requirement to flight plan via MQD from Willy to YSSY in an RPT Queen Air, meeting attended by Arthur Doubleday, Regional Director, Bob Green, Alan Newman and myself Chief Pilot of a commuter airline. "Why can't we plan direct. " Ans "because there is a red arrow. "But why is there a red arrow?," Ans "Because we don't want you to plan that way". And so on.
My opinion of Australian ATC procedures and attitudes consolidated considerably since 1969 and especially after flying GA in the USA, Europe and UK a few times.
I realise that the very unfair court ruling on Controller responsibility in the Jandakot case has made Controllers jittery, but Coffs has absolutely no intention of implimenting D procedures for example. It might as well be C airspace.
It is clear to me, going on what occurs elsewhere, that MDX should have never been required to flight plan via MQD etc. Only in Australia.....
That is my opinion, over and out.
I left the RAAF in 1969 and have done a few things since then.
I recall debating the requirement to flight plan via MQD from Willy to YSSY in an RPT Queen Air, meeting attended by Arthur Doubleday, Regional Director, Bob Green, Alan Newman and myself Chief Pilot of a commuter airline. "Why can't we plan direct. " Ans "because there is a red arrow. "But why is there a red arrow?," Ans "Because we don't want you to plan that way". And so on.
My opinion of Australian ATC procedures and attitudes consolidated considerably since 1969 and especially after flying GA in the USA, Europe and UK a few times.
I realise that the very unfair court ruling on Controller responsibility in the Jandakot case has made Controllers jittery, but Coffs has absolutely no intention of implimenting D procedures for example. It might as well be C airspace.
It is clear to me, going on what occurs elsewhere, that MDX should have never been required to flight plan via MQD etc. Only in Australia.....
That is my opinion, over and out.
Thread Starter
Clarification re Williamtown Air Traffic Controllers
In an Open Letter to Channel Seven by Harry Howard, a former Military Air Traffic Controller, Harry states:
In fact, I didn’t say this. I actually made a number of positive comments about the Controllers.
Here is the actual transcript of the pertinent sections of the Sunrise program Harry is referring to:
David Koch:
Dick Smith:
A little later David Koch asks if the restriction of flight planning over Williamtown is for security reasons. I answer:
A little later, Kochie says:
And I reply:
If any of the Willi Air Traffic Controllers believe that I believe it is the Air Traffic Controllers who are concrete minded, then I absolutely apologise. I have never thought this. Work face military Controllers I have spoken to want to move forward and get some modern procedures. I should have made it clear that it is the decision makers on the Air Traffic Control side in the military who will not allow any change. Work face ATCs clearly can't change airspace design and procedures and I have never thought they could.
In an Open Letter to Channel Seven by Harry Howard, a former Military Air Traffic Controller, Harry states:
“On the Channel Seven Sunrise programme on Monday morning, Dick Smith also stated that RAAF Controllers were ‘concrete minded people’”.
Here is the actual transcript of the pertinent sections of the Sunrise program Harry is referring to:
David Koch:
So you’re blaming the Air Force a bit for this?
Well, well, absolutely, because for thirty years, I and many others have tried to get this changed. For a start, the Controllers - the Air Force Controllers - are as good as any in the world. But the rules and the Airspace they use are thirty years out of date.
If it was for security reasons, they would allow you to put in a flight plan so that they know you’re coming. See, you’ve got to understand the Controllers are fantastic. If they can let you in they will. But in this particular case, they didn’t know about the plane until, suddenly they were called by the Flight Service Officer. They then have to put the information in and try and organise a separation. They didn’t have advanced knowledge, because even today you’re not allowed to put in a flight plan that flies over the airspace.
So what do they say to you, when you go to them and say, hey you’re way behind the times?
I’ve sat at meetings with the head of the Air Force - this is ten years ago. They all said, yes we’re going to fix it, no problems, we’re going to fix it. It’s never changed. There’s something wrong, I think on the Air Traffic Control side. In the Military, there are concrete minded people there who just won’t move to modern procedures.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 6th Jun 2014 at 02:09.
Dick, your issue resides further south at Mascot. Even your mate, Bill has said as much.
In 1981, it was a different world, didn't have to worry about current docs, because you had them. The terminal charts were all FOC as well as the VFG. You could go into a FSU and have a chat about your intended trip as well as direct advice...much as would have been given to that PIC at Coolangatta. He would have had FULLSAR. Yet, all that free stuff and it still came down to one decision alone...and that was the pilot. No one there to hold his hand and tell him what to do like everyone believes the old system was. If you needed help you asked...but if you didn't ask...This still happens today!
Dick, what you are doing is reprehensible! How can you sit there and actually blame a system that has absolutely nothing to do with this accident. I could easily hold you and all those who backed you responsible for carving up the system so most all of it is user pays. If this flight happened today he would have got squat help unless he planned IFR...if he didn't contact WLM before hand HIMSELF he would not know either way if he was able to plan a VERY coastal route...500ft...AT NIGHT! VFR doesn't exist as far as the system goes...JUST THE WAY YOU LIKE IT!
In 1981, it was a different world, didn't have to worry about current docs, because you had them. The terminal charts were all FOC as well as the VFG. You could go into a FSU and have a chat about your intended trip as well as direct advice...much as would have been given to that PIC at Coolangatta. He would have had FULLSAR. Yet, all that free stuff and it still came down to one decision alone...and that was the pilot. No one there to hold his hand and tell him what to do like everyone believes the old system was. If you needed help you asked...but if you didn't ask...This still happens today!
Dick, what you are doing is reprehensible! How can you sit there and actually blame a system that has absolutely nothing to do with this accident. I could easily hold you and all those who backed you responsible for carving up the system so most all of it is user pays. If this flight happened today he would have got squat help unless he planned IFR...if he didn't contact WLM before hand HIMSELF he would not know either way if he was able to plan a VERY coastal route...500ft...AT NIGHT! VFR doesn't exist as far as the system goes...JUST THE WAY YOU LIKE IT!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Canberra, ACT, Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Creampuff.
As you may have noted in my previous posts in this thread, I was ATC at WLM 1982-3. I'm sure that a lot has changed in the Sydney airspace since then - why, we even now have 'alphabetical' airspace - that wasn't around when I was at WLM. In those days the ATZ was GL to 5000ft (12nm radius)and far more often than not, once the knucks had back in the lines the airspace was released to FIS5 and S1. We only used to keep the zone when we were responsible for providing IFR separation for incoming/outgoing civilian aircraft from the 'civvy side'. Once they had finished, the Zone was released to FIS5.
I'm afraid that I can't comment on what the status quo is these days as I'm not active in either the ATC or PPL environments.
Hi Bill. <<Lots of people peddling half truths on this site >>
You're sure right there. People need to read all the transcripts to see just how this unfolded. And Dick shouldn't cherry pick the bits that support his crusade. I must admit that Dick Smith has been one of my heroes over the past 40+ years but, to me, he has lost all credibility by having a go at the professionalism of RAAF ATC when it is not warranted. The 'system' may have contributed to this disaster, but the RAAF ATC certainly didn't! Get off the hobby horse Dick! Blame the system, maybe; blame RAAFWLM ATC - not guilty, 'M'lud! And I think that the transcripts say it all.
Gee, I remember with fondness those nights in the back bar at RIC after night flying had finished. In those days you were quite willing to down a few coldies with us, the opposition/enemy (RIC ATC). You must have departed very shortly after that. Fond memories of days gone by.
<< "Why can't we plan direct. " Ans "because there is a red arrow. "But why is there a red arrow?," Ans "Because we don't want you to plan that way". >>
Just for a bit of clarity, exactly WHO made each of those statements, especially the last one? Who is the 'we'.
As you may have noted in my previous posts in this thread, I was ATC at WLM 1982-3. I'm sure that a lot has changed in the Sydney airspace since then - why, we even now have 'alphabetical' airspace - that wasn't around when I was at WLM. In those days the ATZ was GL to 5000ft (12nm radius)and far more often than not, once the knucks had back in the lines the airspace was released to FIS5 and S1. We only used to keep the zone when we were responsible for providing IFR separation for incoming/outgoing civilian aircraft from the 'civvy side'. Once they had finished, the Zone was released to FIS5.
I'm afraid that I can't comment on what the status quo is these days as I'm not active in either the ATC or PPL environments.
Hi Bill. <<Lots of people peddling half truths on this site >>
You're sure right there. People need to read all the transcripts to see just how this unfolded. And Dick shouldn't cherry pick the bits that support his crusade. I must admit that Dick Smith has been one of my heroes over the past 40+ years but, to me, he has lost all credibility by having a go at the professionalism of RAAF ATC when it is not warranted. The 'system' may have contributed to this disaster, but the RAAF ATC certainly didn't! Get off the hobby horse Dick! Blame the system, maybe; blame RAAFWLM ATC - not guilty, 'M'lud! And I think that the transcripts say it all.
Gee, I remember with fondness those nights in the back bar at RIC after night flying had finished. In those days you were quite willing to down a few coldies with us, the opposition/enemy (RIC ATC). You must have departed very shortly after that. Fond memories of days gone by.
<< "Why can't we plan direct. " Ans "because there is a red arrow. "But why is there a red arrow?," Ans "Because we don't want you to plan that way". >>
Just for a bit of clarity, exactly WHO made each of those statements, especially the last one? Who is the 'we'.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alan Newman made the statements. He represented ATC as I recall (long time ago, forty years in fact) I confess that although that is perfectly and literally true, it is not the whole truth. I was asked to leave the room and Bob Green, who was sitting there red faced and furious, cobbled up a compromise.
Some of my best friends are air traffic controllers.
An ATC training person (short, genial and chubby) told me that when recruiting US ATC they had to be trained to be less helpful and more rule bound.
I do not in general blame the individual controllers.
Some of my best friends are air traffic controllers.
An ATC training person (short, genial and chubby) told me that when recruiting US ATC they had to be trained to be less helpful and more rule bound.
I do not in general blame the individual controllers.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Canberra, ACT, Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dick.
<< If any of the Willi Air Traffic Controllers believe that I believe it is the Air Traffic Controllers who are concrete minded, then I absolutely apologise. >>
That's better! As far as I'm concerned, apology accepted on the condition that you make that a VERY public apology VERY clearly on the sequel programme due to be aired this coming Sunday night.
<< I should have made it clear that it is the decision makers on the Air Traffic Control side in the military who will not allow any change. >>
I'm sure that by now you are aware that it is the RAAF GD Branch that make the operational decisions in the RAAF, not the Special Duties (ATC) Branch. You need to change your aim a bit and target the pilots that run the Air Force, not the ATCs who have to do their bidding.
<< If any of the Willi Air Traffic Controllers believe that I believe it is the Air Traffic Controllers who are concrete minded, then I absolutely apologise. >>
That's better! As far as I'm concerned, apology accepted on the condition that you make that a VERY public apology VERY clearly on the sequel programme due to be aired this coming Sunday night.
<< I should have made it clear that it is the decision makers on the Air Traffic Control side in the military who will not allow any change. >>
I'm sure that by now you are aware that it is the RAAF GD Branch that make the operational decisions in the RAAF, not the Special Duties (ATC) Branch. You need to change your aim a bit and target the pilots that run the Air Force, not the ATCs who have to do their bidding.