More RAAF intransigence YBWW/YBOK
AirCheck | Australian Airspace & Flight Display
Thought I would check what all the whinging was about. Most of it is below 10000 feet, and most is active by NOTAM. The high stuff is off the coast. Doesn't seem to be the vast amounts of airspace referred to by some.
Flight Planning, Flight Planning Information, and Download Aviation Charts for Private Pilots at AeroPlanner.com
Gives the USA. Didn't try and count all the NOTAMS of active airspace. But there is a lot. Think you dudes need to do some research.
The don.
Rutan, I am sure most of those military flyers make more money than you, so in fact they are paying more towards Defence in their higher taxes than you are. Your logic is very flawed. Get help.
Thought I would check what all the whinging was about. Most of it is below 10000 feet, and most is active by NOTAM. The high stuff is off the coast. Doesn't seem to be the vast amounts of airspace referred to by some.
Flight Planning, Flight Planning Information, and Download Aviation Charts for Private Pilots at AeroPlanner.com
Gives the USA. Didn't try and count all the NOTAMS of active airspace. But there is a lot. Think you dudes need to do some research.
The don.
Rutan, I am sure most of those military flyers make more money than you, so in fact they are paying more towards Defence in their higher taxes than you are. Your logic is very flawed. Get help.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The implication in some posts is that Australia is 'unique.' That we need to grow up and conform to 'world's best practice' whatever the hell that is. Australia's 'greatest aviator' also pushes the same line and transparency of argument goes out the window because of what I regard as half-truths that are peddled at the altar of convenient argument.
From Leady, whose an otherwise nice bloke:
The implication there 'Leady,' old fruit, is that we are the only ones that impose these restrictions on civil traffic offshore. I wouldn't mind if your argument was watertight, but it ain't.
Check out Canadian AIP and associated charts for over-water airspace outside the territorial limit off its east coast. It's Class F with the addendum that 'clearance is required.'
Similarly with NZ. In 2004, NZ CAA published an 'Airspace Handbook' that allowed free-for-all movement through offshore MOAs promulgated for military activity. That's the ideal world according to the zealots.
In 2008, the NZ CAA, a civil agency BTW, republished the Handbook with the addendum on offshore MOAs that 'clearance is required.' Why? Because they realised that unfettered access in amongst military activity was just plain dumb.
I don't mind the zealotry as regards airspace. But I would like to see fact as opposed to what I regard as half-truths in support of arguments that lend the impression that Australia is 'unique' when it comes to airspace management.
Half-truths have been the weapons of convenience for the zealots during, and since, that disaster called NAS.
Tootle-Pip!
From Leady, whose an otherwise nice bloke:
We continue to publish purported restricted military training areas outside Australia's continental limit, which have absolutely no legal standing, but it is the same arrogance as displayed by "username here" that is the basis of why we continue to do so.
Check out Canadian AIP and associated charts for over-water airspace outside the territorial limit off its east coast. It's Class F with the addendum that 'clearance is required.'
Similarly with NZ. In 2004, NZ CAA published an 'Airspace Handbook' that allowed free-for-all movement through offshore MOAs promulgated for military activity. That's the ideal world according to the zealots.
In 2008, the NZ CAA, a civil agency BTW, republished the Handbook with the addendum on offshore MOAs that 'clearance is required.' Why? Because they realised that unfettered access in amongst military activity was just plain dumb.
I don't mind the zealotry as regards airspace. But I would like to see fact as opposed to what I regard as half-truths in support of arguments that lend the impression that Australia is 'unique' when it comes to airspace management.
Half-truths have been the weapons of convenience for the zealots during, and since, that disaster called NAS.
Tootle-Pip!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure most of those military flyers make more money than you,
At least I have paid for my own planes.
Unfortunately only one has oxygen so I don't always have the option to fly in the flight levels. So whenever some seat polishing squadron leader has a random neuron firing that a bit of jolly old flying would be nice today what? the rest of us are inconvenienced until such time he gets around to reopening what he regards as his airspace.
The suggestion that the military pay through their taxes for the cost of the military is breathtakingly stupid. All their pay comes from taxpayers to start with. A fraction of their pay goes back to the Government and some of it funds the military.
Howabout. Don't sign off Tootle-Pip. It's confusing and besides Leadie has copyright.
And QF drivers pay for their aircraft also I assume? When I buy my own aircraft does that mean I have to hate the RAAF also?
Your hits at military aviation in this country are becoming increasingly more broad and desperate, you are perfectly entitled to your opinions about airspace management, I don't even really disagree with you in your overall view, but the general snarky remarks about the RAAF and its professionalism from an operators perspective are poor at best.
There is no such thing as a SQNLDR deciding to just go for a jolly because they feel like it in the modern Air Force. If someone is going flying, its for a specific reason, to meet a specific objective and they are current aircrew. There are plenty of FCI's at the SQNLDR level that can do things with an aircraft that are quite impressive, your insinuation that they are just going for joyrides is a bit far off of the mark to say the least. There are also quite a few SQNLDR's currently dropping bombs on ISIL in the Middle East.
Considering the type of flying that the Air Force does, and how often they do it, they don't seem to (touch wood) put a lot of smoking wrecks in the ground, whether a Flying Officer or a Wing Commander is at the helm.
Your hits at military aviation in this country are becoming increasingly more broad and desperate, you are perfectly entitled to your opinions about airspace management, I don't even really disagree with you in your overall view, but the general snarky remarks about the RAAF and its professionalism from an operators perspective are poor at best.
There is no such thing as a SQNLDR deciding to just go for a jolly because they feel like it in the modern Air Force. If someone is going flying, its for a specific reason, to meet a specific objective and they are current aircrew. There are plenty of FCI's at the SQNLDR level that can do things with an aircraft that are quite impressive, your insinuation that they are just going for joyrides is a bit far off of the mark to say the least. There are also quite a few SQNLDR's currently dropping bombs on ISIL in the Middle East.
Considering the type of flying that the Air Force does, and how often they do it, they don't seem to (touch wood) put a lot of smoking wrecks in the ground, whether a Flying Officer or a Wing Commander is at the helm.
Howabout,
It's nothing to do with zealots, and everything to do with international law, period.
All the cases you mention of purported restricted airspace in international airspace have no legal standing, notwithstanding claims otherwise in any national publications.
The US is a very good example, they are one of the few countries that assiduously comply with the law. Thus, all US mil. practice areas outside the 12 mile limit are designated Warning areas, in accord with ICAO recommendations.
The reference to "Class F" and "clearance required " are mutually contradictory, it is either Class F or it is a class of airspace (E IFR or D and up, all cats. of flight) where a clearance is required, it cannot be both.
The fact remains that the volume of various kinds of mil. airspace in Australia is ridiculous and a major financial impost for no valid reason.
Tootle pip!!
PS: At least it was not as bad as when I started flying, where all airspace above Sydney, from about FL290, was R, H24, and we used to have to commence descent about a 100nm before desired, to remain below RAAF R airspace.
It's nothing to do with zealots, and everything to do with international law, period.
All the cases you mention of purported restricted airspace in international airspace have no legal standing, notwithstanding claims otherwise in any national publications.
The US is a very good example, they are one of the few countries that assiduously comply with the law. Thus, all US mil. practice areas outside the 12 mile limit are designated Warning areas, in accord with ICAO recommendations.
The reference to "Class F" and "clearance required " are mutually contradictory, it is either Class F or it is a class of airspace (E IFR or D and up, all cats. of flight) where a clearance is required, it cannot be both.
The fact remains that the volume of various kinds of mil. airspace in Australia is ridiculous and a major financial impost for no valid reason.
Tootle pip!!
PS: At least it was not as bad as when I started flying, where all airspace above Sydney, from about FL290, was R, H24, and we used to have to commence descent about a 100nm before desired, to remain below RAAF R airspace.
Leaddie:
Australia can make laws that have extra-territorial effect on and application to persons and things connected with Australia. That’s why it’s offence, under Australian law, for an Australian to engage a VH-registered aircraft in commercial operations in Swaziland, without an AOC issued under the Australian Civil Aviation Act.
It is true that Australia has no jurisdiction to purport to promulgate Romeo airspace binding on foreign aircraft in international airspace. But Australia does have jurisdiction to promulgate Romeo airspace binding on Australian aircraft in international airspace.
I could be wrong, though. Put your money where your mouth is: Jump into a VH-registered aircraft and fly around in an active Australian Romeo, 13 nms on the seaward side of the territorial sea baseline. Plenty off e.g. Nowra and Williamtown to choose from. Let us know how you go.
(However, I agree that “the volume of various kinds of mil. airspace in Australia is ridiculous”.)
Australia can make laws that have extra-territorial effect on and application to persons and things connected with Australia. That’s why it’s offence, under Australian law, for an Australian to engage a VH-registered aircraft in commercial operations in Swaziland, without an AOC issued under the Australian Civil Aviation Act.
It is true that Australia has no jurisdiction to purport to promulgate Romeo airspace binding on foreign aircraft in international airspace. But Australia does have jurisdiction to promulgate Romeo airspace binding on Australian aircraft in international airspace.
I could be wrong, though. Put your money where your mouth is: Jump into a VH-registered aircraft and fly around in an active Australian Romeo, 13 nms on the seaward side of the territorial sea baseline. Plenty off e.g. Nowra and Williamtown to choose from. Let us know how you go.
(However, I agree that “the volume of various kinds of mil. airspace in Australia is ridiculous”.)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, Leady, but it has everything to do with zealotry.
Zealotry pushed half-truths during 11/11, the G-Airspace Trial, Airspace 2000, Son of Airspace 2000, and that basket-case NAS. In my opinion, the protagonists were less than truthful; however influence and profile reigned and politicians and bureaucrats alike were sucked in to the tune of untold millions.
There are only two legitimate avenues to address airspace change, and they go hand-in-hand. A proper risk-management analysis and, most importantly, a robust cost/benefit analysis. Neither was done in the aforementioned disasters. Influence and half-truths ruled the roost to the cost of the taxpayer. They were all pet projects pushed with flawed underlying assumptions that were ignored in the interests of ramming home change while influence was there with the ignorant.
And this goes to the nub of zealotry, Leady. The dumb in government were unduly influenced by half-truths that were shamelessly sold as fact.
The 'Australia is unique' line was constantly peddled by zealots to back change. No risk management and no cost/benefit. Just an airy-fairy argument that we are 'unique.'
But, as I have related, we are not. I'll reiterate - Canadian offshore Class F is also designated as D; and you need a clearance. NZ offshore MOAs now require a clearance and have for the last eight years.
Your argument that it's 'illegal' is peripheral to the fact that other sovereign nations pursue similar procedures. Which is way, way counter to the accusations of 'uniqueness' in Australia. This was the fundamental, fundamental justification for airspace change in Australia and it was just so much tripe!
Arguments based on fact I have no issue with. Arguments based on BS, with a concomitant loss off taxpayer dollars, have seen an ongoing, divisive series of exercises that we don't need to revisit.
You want change Leady? Risk management and cost/benefit and I'll back you to the hilt if the numbers come out on the positive side of the ledger! 'We are unique' just doesn't wash.
Zealotry pushed half-truths during 11/11, the G-Airspace Trial, Airspace 2000, Son of Airspace 2000, and that basket-case NAS. In my opinion, the protagonists were less than truthful; however influence and profile reigned and politicians and bureaucrats alike were sucked in to the tune of untold millions.
There are only two legitimate avenues to address airspace change, and they go hand-in-hand. A proper risk-management analysis and, most importantly, a robust cost/benefit analysis. Neither was done in the aforementioned disasters. Influence and half-truths ruled the roost to the cost of the taxpayer. They were all pet projects pushed with flawed underlying assumptions that were ignored in the interests of ramming home change while influence was there with the ignorant.
And this goes to the nub of zealotry, Leady. The dumb in government were unduly influenced by half-truths that were shamelessly sold as fact.
The 'Australia is unique' line was constantly peddled by zealots to back change. No risk management and no cost/benefit. Just an airy-fairy argument that we are 'unique.'
But, as I have related, we are not. I'll reiterate - Canadian offshore Class F is also designated as D; and you need a clearance. NZ offshore MOAs now require a clearance and have for the last eight years.
Your argument that it's 'illegal' is peripheral to the fact that other sovereign nations pursue similar procedures. Which is way, way counter to the accusations of 'uniqueness' in Australia. This was the fundamental, fundamental justification for airspace change in Australia and it was just so much tripe!
Arguments based on fact I have no issue with. Arguments based on BS, with a concomitant loss off taxpayer dollars, have seen an ongoing, divisive series of exercises that we don't need to revisit.
You want change Leady? Risk management and cost/benefit and I'll back you to the hilt if the numbers come out on the positive side of the ledger! 'We are unique' just doesn't wash.
I agree entirely with the strategic point that not much done about aviation in Australia is based on proper risk and cost/benefit analyses. As I've said many times before, most of the decisions about aviation regulation in Australia appear to be about politics, thinly veiled as safety.
So, what would we anticipate an objective risk and cost/benefit analysis of the ADF's airspace requirements in Australia to produce, and why?
If all that ADF-related Romeo airspace that's vastly larger compared with other Western countries with more aircraft and grumpier terrain is justifiable on a risk and cost/benefit basis, let's see the analyses. Us nobodies will do our best to understand them.
So, what would we anticipate an objective risk and cost/benefit analysis of the ADF's airspace requirements in Australia to produce, and why?
If all that ADF-related Romeo airspace that's vastly larger compared with other Western countries with more aircraft and grumpier terrain is justifiable on a risk and cost/benefit basis, let's see the analyses. Us nobodies will do our best to understand them.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Creamy, you are a bright bloke - far smarter than me.
However, the core argument goes to the justification for change.
It's not incumbent on the military to justify what exists. It's incumbent on the protagonists for 'reform' to back change based on solid argument - risk analysis and cost/benefit.
Just stating that there's too much R in comparison to other places is nothing more than opinion. And 'opinion' gave us the 'airspace reform' disasters that go back years.
By all means, push for change, but back it up with solid analysis and present that analysis in support of your 'opinion.'
Opinion alone just doesn't cut it - facts-based risk analysis and cost/benefit are required if we are going to have change that can be justified and accepted. Nothing more, nothing less.
Opinion has been the mother of strife as regards airspace management in this country.
However, the core argument goes to the justification for change.
It's not incumbent on the military to justify what exists. It's incumbent on the protagonists for 'reform' to back change based on solid argument - risk analysis and cost/benefit.
Just stating that there's too much R in comparison to other places is nothing more than opinion. And 'opinion' gave us the 'airspace reform' disasters that go back years.
By all means, push for change, but back it up with solid analysis and present that analysis in support of your 'opinion.'
Opinion alone just doesn't cut it - facts-based risk analysis and cost/benefit are required if we are going to have change that can be justified and accepted. Nothing more, nothing less.
Opinion has been the mother of strife as regards airspace management in this country.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opinion has been the mother of strife as regards airspace management in this country.
It's not just in aviation we have this problem.
Car drivers hate bike riders and think the bike riders should stay off 'their' roads.
Truck and bus drivers want the road to themselves and hate car drivers as well as bikes.
The filthy rich hate the fact that they can't own the beach in front of their place and must suffer the indignity of watching the plebs play on 'their' beach.
The answer lies in both proper data and consideration for others.
Again, I agree with the paucity of facts-based risk analysis and cost/benefit in these decisions. I'd also suggest that the bane of airspace reform, in particular, is abysmally poor industry education and implementation management.
I'd also suggest that there are cultural differences between e.g. the USA and Australia. In the USA, the citizens allow the government to use their land and taxes for e.g. military purposes to benefit the citizens. In Australia, the citizens are subjects of the Crown and exist to be taxed and governed for the benefit of the Crown (or, increasingly, the mates of governments). Hence, it is, as you say, incumbent on humble citizens in Australia to petition governments to condescend to share or give up some of 'the government's' airspace.
On the facts/opinion issue, it seems to me that the volumes of airspace, the number of movements, the topography and climate at various places are facts. It seems to me that valid inferences may be drawn from comparisons of those facts. But maybe that's just my opinion.
I'd also suggest that there are cultural differences between e.g. the USA and Australia. In the USA, the citizens allow the government to use their land and taxes for e.g. military purposes to benefit the citizens. In Australia, the citizens are subjects of the Crown and exist to be taxed and governed for the benefit of the Crown (or, increasingly, the mates of governments). Hence, it is, as you say, incumbent on humble citizens in Australia to petition governments to condescend to share or give up some of 'the government's' airspace.
On the facts/opinion issue, it seems to me that the volumes of airspace, the number of movements, the topography and climate at various places are facts. It seems to me that valid inferences may be drawn from comparisons of those facts. But maybe that's just my opinion.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creamy, all pretty valid points IMHO. I do not disagree with your contention that there is 'too much.' But that is perception on my part - opinion, if you will.
And without wishing to belabor the point, reliance on personal perceptions have led to the serial train smashes. It's like bloody Groundhog Day.
Even simple stuff, like mandatory/advisory calls in a CTAF, where the 'professionals' were pitted against the 'amateurs,' generated the same angst. And, before anyone takes offence with those terms, it's just a simple delineation to truncate the argument.
I remember going to an OAR sponsored meeting a few years back when CTAF procedures were the main agenda item - Leady was there. There were the protagonists for the pure US model and those that wouldn't accept anything less than mandatory calls. Anyone with a modicum of experience would have realised that 'never the twain shall meet.'
However, a young and well-intentioned lady announced at the beginning of proceedings that 'ladies and gentlemen, we are here to reach consensus.' No disrespect to her, but I damned near chucked because consensus was a pipe-dream.
On this most simple of issues what was required was facts-based analysis presented to the throng along with a decision from the Regulator - not a gabfest. It was a total waste of time and we've ended up with a hybrid that's neither fowl nor fish.
For the record, and also being military at the time, my personal opinion favored the pure US model and I had no axe to grind either way. What was required was facts-based argument, no fears and no favors, and a decision based on rational analysis and presented to the meeting. 'Stow the objections, this is the way we are going and the numbers support our decision.'
Had that been done, I'm pretty sure we'd be living with a better CTAF system and the angst would have died eons ago.
But, but, that's just my opinion.
And without wishing to belabor the point, reliance on personal perceptions have led to the serial train smashes. It's like bloody Groundhog Day.
Even simple stuff, like mandatory/advisory calls in a CTAF, where the 'professionals' were pitted against the 'amateurs,' generated the same angst. And, before anyone takes offence with those terms, it's just a simple delineation to truncate the argument.
I remember going to an OAR sponsored meeting a few years back when CTAF procedures were the main agenda item - Leady was there. There were the protagonists for the pure US model and those that wouldn't accept anything less than mandatory calls. Anyone with a modicum of experience would have realised that 'never the twain shall meet.'
However, a young and well-intentioned lady announced at the beginning of proceedings that 'ladies and gentlemen, we are here to reach consensus.' No disrespect to her, but I damned near chucked because consensus was a pipe-dream.
On this most simple of issues what was required was facts-based analysis presented to the throng along with a decision from the Regulator - not a gabfest. It was a total waste of time and we've ended up with a hybrid that's neither fowl nor fish.
For the record, and also being military at the time, my personal opinion favored the pure US model and I had no axe to grind either way. What was required was facts-based argument, no fears and no favors, and a decision based on rational analysis and presented to the meeting. 'Stow the objections, this is the way we are going and the numbers support our decision.'
Had that been done, I'm pretty sure we'd be living with a better CTAF system and the angst would have died eons ago.
But, but, that's just my opinion.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Not sure if you guys have thrashed this out already, but look at the RWY11 notes. http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...p/s14-h106.pdf
Not available when OK is active?
FFS that is the prevailing wind and during office hours.
I know Oakey has a bit of a tight squeeze now that they have less real estate, but this is BULL****.
I was a little sympathetic for the OK folk before, and I understand the limiting of VFR wander through traffic as well as the limiting IFR routes, but to kill off an IFR approach that is the vast majority of use.
The Toowoomba council, aeroclub and the local FBO, and groggy should refuse all cooperation in response. They might get the message.
How will they deal with a crappy day and blustery conditions when a/c start using the words, sorry require RNAV RWY 11.
Please tell me I have missed something and gone off half cocked.
Not available when OK is active?
FFS that is the prevailing wind and during office hours.I know Oakey has a bit of a tight squeeze now that they have less real estate, but this is BULL****.
I was a little sympathetic for the OK folk before, and I understand the limiting of VFR wander through traffic as well as the limiting IFR routes, but to kill off an IFR approach that is the vast majority of use.
The Toowoomba council, aeroclub and the local FBO, and groggy should refuse all cooperation in response. They might get the message.
How will they deal with a crappy day and blustery conditions when a/c start using the words, sorry require RNAV RWY 11.
Please tell me I have missed something and gone off half cocked.