Huge Willy Airspace
Thread Starter
How about. That article is referring to un alerted see and avoid. Which happens in our existing class G when military aircraft are flying in this airspace
Quite different to a directed traffic information service that happens at 100s of airports including Australia all the time . That's what should happen in low level airspace up the lane in VMC at Willy
Just shows how you desperately resist change and copying the best.
When my major publicity campaign hits about the lack of leadership re modern life saving procedures hits the media you can try and defend the in defensible then.
Quite different to a directed traffic information service that happens at 100s of airports including Australia all the time . That's what should happen in low level airspace up the lane in VMC at Willy
Just shows how you desperately resist change and copying the best.
When my major publicity campaign hits about the lack of leadership re modern life saving procedures hits the media you can try and defend the in defensible then.
"The morale in the RAAF must be low because the workers must know how incompetent their leadership is."
And your proof of this is?
"When my major publicity campaign hits about the lack of leadership re modern life saving procedures hits the media you can try and defend the
in defensible [sic] then. But to have any credibility you won't be able to hide behind gutless anonymity.."
Name; Rank and Serial Number?
In a previous life, I was F.G.Varley; Cpl; A49075.
And your proof of this is?
"When my major publicity campaign hits about the lack of leadership re modern life saving procedures hits the media you can try and defend the
in defensible [sic] then. But to have any credibility you won't be able to hide behind gutless anonymity.."
Name; Rank and Serial Number?
In a previous life, I was F.G.Varley; Cpl; A49075.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrong again, and again, and again.
Slag me all you want, but that article referred to operations in an MOA. Which is the exact classification of airspace that you demanded under NAS to replace the majority of R. R provides separation assurance, as opposed to your 'see and be hit' regime.
Nice one on 'anonymity.' It's always your fallback when you're losing an argument.
Interesting line Dick: was the following an implied threat? Just asking.
Anyway, I am seriously looking forward to this 'major publicity campaign.'
Please do post the details on here here and keep us updated.
Slag me all you want, but that article referred to operations in an MOA. Which is the exact classification of airspace that you demanded under NAS to replace the majority of R. R provides separation assurance, as opposed to your 'see and be hit' regime.
Nice one on 'anonymity.' It's always your fallback when you're losing an argument.
When my major publicity campaign hits about the lack of leadership re modern life saving procedures hits the media you can try and defend the in defensible then. But to have any credibility you won't be able to hide behind gutless anonymity..
you won't be able to hide behind gutless anonymity..
Please do post the details on here here and keep us updated.
Dick, all you really seem to know about the RAAF is that they manage their airspace in a way that displeases you. You clearly have little real idea of what they do, how they do it, or the capability of the people running the joint. But by all means run your public campaign against incompetence and poor leadership at the top of the RAAF. It'll get you some attention, and maybe strike a chord with the odd starstruck junior reporter and anyone who doesn't know any better. But against people of the calibre of Binskin, Davies etc, you're just going to end up looking very, very silly.
Personally I'm not that fussed what happens with WLM airspace. It causes me occasional minor inconvenience, but nothing that greatly upsets me. (In fact, for all I care, they can establish a permanent transit lane for your exclusive personal use, complete with a skywriting aircraft that writes 'With thanks from a grateful nation' in enormous letters, every time you pass through.) Thing is, though, even if there is a case for reform of the WLM airspace, the way you're going about it is counterproductive. The smears, the distortions, the faint whiff of grandiose narcissism ("I will hold them accountable", "my major publicity campaign") - none of it is helpful. You'll get some initial attention, but under any sort of serious scrutiny (be it of the RAAF's leadership, or what happened with MDX), your credibility will be damaged and you'll get nowhere. It's a shame you can't see this.
Personally I'm not that fussed what happens with WLM airspace. It causes me occasional minor inconvenience, but nothing that greatly upsets me. (In fact, for all I care, they can establish a permanent transit lane for your exclusive personal use, complete with a skywriting aircraft that writes 'With thanks from a grateful nation' in enormous letters, every time you pass through.) Thing is, though, even if there is a case for reform of the WLM airspace, the way you're going about it is counterproductive. The smears, the distortions, the faint whiff of grandiose narcissism ("I will hold them accountable", "my major publicity campaign") - none of it is helpful. You'll get some initial attention, but under any sort of serious scrutiny (be it of the RAAF's leadership, or what happened with MDX), your credibility will be damaged and you'll get nowhere. It's a shame you can't see this.
Thread Starter
After 30 years of getting nowhere in relation to the high risk being forced on transiting single engined traffic by mandating low level orbiting over the ocean I clearly have no other way of getting a change
I sold my north coast property so I don't go that way anymore. The changes will not effect me personally in any way.
But it's clear there are going to be further uneccessary deaths caused by the out of date airspace design.
When the deaths occur - probably a young family- the changes will then happen.
My rediculous plan is to get the changes in before the accident.
Just need to have proven FAA procedures in the tower airspace and 90% of the holding will go away. But they so lack confidence and ability that they can't make any change at all.
I sold my north coast property so I don't go that way anymore. The changes will not effect me personally in any way.
But it's clear there are going to be further uneccessary deaths caused by the out of date airspace design.
When the deaths occur - probably a young family- the changes will then happen.
My rediculous plan is to get the changes in before the accident.
Just need to have proven FAA procedures in the tower airspace and 90% of the holding will go away. But they so lack confidence and ability that they can't make any change at all.
Your links are tenuous to say the least, Dick.
is a very far cry from 'choosing to take an aircraft with malfunctioning flight instruments at night into icing conditions over inhospitable terrain'
Holding equals death? And maybe an older single bloke, or a guitar playing nun? Not sure which is the more likely, I must consult my crystal ball.
Get stuck in with your plan to dissuade young people from signing up for the RAAF, it sounds very well thought out and is bound to achieve the aim you want.
I don't believe:
a) you would be silly enough to think such a plan would have any significant effect,
b) you are motivated by the sad loss of life in this situation - rather, you just have an axe to grind about holding. I remember when there was that little semicircle cut out of Canberra CTR - nobody else would expect to get special treatment like that, but you do.
high risk being forced on transiting single engined traffic by mandating low level orbiting over the ocean
When the deaths occur - probably a young family
Get stuck in with your plan to dissuade young people from signing up for the RAAF, it sounds very well thought out and is bound to achieve the aim you want.
I don't believe:
a) you would be silly enough to think such a plan would have any significant effect,
b) you are motivated by the sad loss of life in this situation - rather, you just have an axe to grind about holding. I remember when there was that little semicircle cut out of Canberra CTR - nobody else would expect to get special treatment like that, but you do.
Thread Starter
Do you have any other suggestion as to how to get the safety improvements in the airspace to remove the giant roadblock in the sky?
Re the airspace cutout. You are incorrect. Bill Davey at Bungendore had an airspace cutout many years before I did. They decided to give the same to me rather than change the huge " make jobs" airspace.
Re the airspace cutout. You are incorrect. Bill Davey at Bungendore had an airspace cutout many years before I did. They decided to give the same to me rather than change the huge " make jobs" airspace.
Ditch the emotive nonsense (like the young families who are doomed to crash while holding) and the poorly-founded attacks on the competence of people who are known to be highly competent. Try not to make ill-informed assertions on leadership and morale in organisations you have little knowledge of. Stop trying to rewrite the history of tragic accidents to suit your own ends, and don't try to reassign culpability based on creative new definitions of words like 'sent' and 'forced'. All of this might play well in the tabloids, but it doesn't really help your cause - it just strengthens opposition to it.
Instead, make a calm, rational case based on facts and logic. If it's a good case presented in a sensible way, you deserve to succeed. Good luck.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ditch the emotive nonsense (like the young families who are doomed to crash while holding) and the poorly-founded attacks on the competence of people who are known to be highly competent. Try not to make ill-informed assertions on leadership and morale in organisations you have little knowledge of. Stop trying to rewrite the history of tragic accidents to suit your own ends, and don't try to reassign culpability based on creative new definitions of words like 'sent' and 'forced'. All of this might play well in the tabloids, but it doesn't really help your cause - it just strengthens opposition to it.
"Lateral separation shall be applied so that the distance between those portions of the intended routes for which the aircraft are to be laterally separated is never less than an established distance to account for navigational inaccuracies plus a specified buffer. This buffer shall be determined by the appropriate authority and included in the lateral separation minima as an integral part thereof."
The Australian MOS Part 172 10.8.1.1 defines that buffer as 1NM:
"10.8.1.1 The Lateral Separation buffer is 1NM between the possible positions of two aircraft. (ICAO PANS-ATM, Chapter 5.)"
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree 100% INTBH.
The RAAF has never been against, and has always been open to, cogent argument that puts a rational case forward based on fact, not opinion or emotion.
Unfortunately, that's never been the case in respect of this issue going back years.
I lost count of the number of polite replies, for 'senior Sir' sign-off, I had to write in response to an avalanche of correspondence that, IMHO, was emotive, lacking fact, and just amounted to 'I want because of who I am.'
Days wasted researching and crafting factual letters in rebuttal, because that was/is our responsibility. Days wasted in reply to bumf dashed-off in what I regarded as a sixty-second fit of pique. And days wasted responding to gormless politicians that had been 'captured' by a name - to use an expression bandied around on this forum.
My time could have been far better spent on practical improvements to the system, but there was always another letter in the in-tray and, no matter how loopy, our obligation as 'public servants' was always to respond in a polite, factual and non-emotive manner. But it chewed so much time; the loss of which I still regret.
The RAAF has never been against, and has always been open to, cogent argument that puts a rational case forward based on fact, not opinion or emotion.
Unfortunately, that's never been the case in respect of this issue going back years.
I lost count of the number of polite replies, for 'senior Sir' sign-off, I had to write in response to an avalanche of correspondence that, IMHO, was emotive, lacking fact, and just amounted to 'I want because of who I am.'
Days wasted researching and crafting factual letters in rebuttal, because that was/is our responsibility. Days wasted in reply to bumf dashed-off in what I regarded as a sixty-second fit of pique. And days wasted responding to gormless politicians that had been 'captured' by a name - to use an expression bandied around on this forum.
My time could have been far better spent on practical improvements to the system, but there was always another letter in the in-tray and, no matter how loopy, our obligation as 'public servants' was always to respond in a polite, factual and non-emotive manner. But it chewed so much time; the loss of which I still regret.
Ditch the emotive nonsense (like the young families who are doomed to crash while holding) and the poorly-founded attacks on the competence of people who are known to be highly competent. Try not to make ill-informed assertions on leadership and morale in organisations you have little knowledge of. Stop trying to rewrite the history of tragic accidents to suit your own ends, and don't try to reassign culpability based on creative new definitions of words like 'sent' and 'forced'. All of this might play well in the tabloids, but it doesn't really help your cause - it just strengthens opposition to it.
Thread Starter
Over 20 years of behind the scenes calm rational requests to copy the best in the world has got nowhere.
Alan Hawke AC told me it was the "Iron Colonels" that stopped even the Head of Defence getting reasonable changes that they wanted.
Once class D procedures are given to the tower and adequate airspace is provided safety will be improved and money wasting holding will be reduced.
They are incapable of making any change at all. Just as the Super Seasprite disaster showed the incompetence of these military people- another uneccessary loss of life will happen at Williamtown.
Notice how no named Military Controllor ever makes a public statement in relation to Williamtown airspace. It's all about never being held accountable for anything . Who is the head Military ATC? No one has any idea. Just one announcement with a rational explanation stating why they can't copy the safer and more efficient North American or European procedures would stop my campaign .
Alan Hawke AC told me it was the "Iron Colonels" that stopped even the Head of Defence getting reasonable changes that they wanted.
Once class D procedures are given to the tower and adequate airspace is provided safety will be improved and money wasting holding will be reduced.
They are incapable of making any change at all. Just as the Super Seasprite disaster showed the incompetence of these military people- another uneccessary loss of life will happen at Williamtown.
Notice how no named Military Controllor ever makes a public statement in relation to Williamtown airspace. It's all about never being held accountable for anything . Who is the head Military ATC? No one has any idea. Just one announcement with a rational explanation stating why they can't copy the safer and more efficient North American or European procedures would stop my campaign .
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First off, I was always accountable. If my advice was wrong and, ultimately, I embarrassed the Chief, government, or minister, I'd have been 'bent over' for not getting my facts straight and indulging in BS.
Alan Hawke? As an entomologist that got his PhD studying bugs (locusts), I can truly appreciate his knowledge and affinity with airspace.
I met the dude on several occasions when he was Secretary. He was as inspiring as a pot-plant and had the aviation knowledge to match.
God Dick, just continue the rants. You truly do go from bad to worse.
It's kinda pathetic to witness your spiral into irrelevance.
Alan Hawke? As an entomologist that got his PhD studying bugs (locusts), I can truly appreciate his knowledge and affinity with airspace.
I met the dude on several occasions when he was Secretary. He was as inspiring as a pot-plant and had the aviation knowledge to match.
God Dick, just continue the rants. You truly do go from bad to worse.
It's kinda pathetic to witness your spiral into irrelevance.
Dick,
I'm rather curious..
Your comments at #61 last night concluded with the sentence: "But to have any credibility you won't be able to hide behind gutless anonymity.."
I quoted this at #62 and Howabout also did at #63.
But today that sentence has disappeared. And without a "Last edited" subtitle. So how did you do that? Perhaps you have a tame Mod in your pocket?
I'm rather curious..
Your comments at #61 last night concluded with the sentence: "But to have any credibility you won't be able to hide behind gutless anonymity.."
I quoted this at #62 and Howabout also did at #63.
But today that sentence has disappeared. And without a "Last edited" subtitle. So how did you do that? Perhaps you have a tame Mod in your pocket?
So many words, fujii and le pi, to provide the answer: The lateral separation buffer in Australia is not a number specified by ICAO.
The buffer is instead ... plucked out of of the arse of ... let's guess ... hmmmm ... I'm guessing someone in Australia who has the luxury of transferring the consequences of their risk aversion to someone else, backed by the mystique of aviation (i.e. the cognitive bias of punters.)
The irony is that if Dick wasn't such an egomaniac and had some capacity to heed advice, he might be able to articulate his arguments a little more convincingly for experts.
The buffer is instead ... plucked out of of the arse of ... let's guess ... hmmmm ... I'm guessing someone in Australia who has the luxury of transferring the consequences of their risk aversion to someone else, backed by the mystique of aviation (i.e. the cognitive bias of punters.)
The irony is that if Dick wasn't such an egomaniac and had some capacity to heed advice, he might be able to articulate his arguments a little more convincingly for experts.
What buffer do you suggest LB? The ICAO doc 4444 reference doesn't suggest anything, but looking at the VOR example where one aircraft must be at least 15nm away with a 15 degree angular difference is very close to our 1nm buffer figures we use.