Huge Willy Airspace
I'm one of the crazy people who think the buffer should be set on the basis of an objective assessment of the objective and comparative risks, and the various costs of mitigating them.
I realise that stuffing private citizens around is zero cost so far as a government authority is concerned, but I'd be grateful if someone would set out the probabilities of an aircraft in an overshoot from 12 at WLM colliding with a light aircraft 4nm away at 500', not just the melodramatic cost.
I realise that stuffing private citizens around is zero cost so far as a government authority is concerned, but I'd be grateful if someone would set out the probabilities of an aircraft in an overshoot from 12 at WLM colliding with a light aircraft 4nm away at 500', not just the melodramatic cost.
LB, you really don't get what separation is. If we can't positively establish a separation standard we don't have separation. Let's play a game:
Assuming we're using terminal radar so can use a 3NM radar standard (assuming we can see you on said radar) and 1,000ft vertically. So the aircraft has to be at 1,500ft at 1NM. How can you guarantee a go-around will achieve this? You can't. So no separation exists.
Getting back to buffers. Where do you think radar standards come from? Someone back in the dim darks plucked a distance for a separation buffer and added radar tolerances.
Assuming we're using terminal radar so can use a 3NM radar standard (assuming we can see you on said radar) and 1,000ft vertically. So the aircraft has to be at 1,500ft at 1NM. How can you guarantee a go-around will achieve this? You can't. So no separation exists.
Getting back to buffers. Where do you think radar standards come from? Someone back in the dim darks plucked a distance for a separation buffer and added radar tolerances.
Two aircraft in the same airspace, Same weather at the same time. VH-AZC continues to a successful outcome, VH-MDX ends up in a situation beyond the capability of its PIC. Sounds like a good human factors study. Seems pilots can make the airspace work (que AZC), so money spent there would be wasted. Has there been any repeat in the past 30 years? Taxes would be best spent elsewhere.
Root cause would seem to be somewhere in the soft skills of decision making and knowledge and situational awareness. Have there been any other repeat accidents due to this in the past 30yrs? If you want to save that young family, perhaps effort could be put into finding better ways of teaching and encouraging skills that are the real reasons aircraft crash.
Root cause would seem to be somewhere in the soft skills of decision making and knowledge and situational awareness. Have there been any other repeat accidents due to this in the past 30yrs? If you want to save that young family, perhaps effort could be put into finding better ways of teaching and encouraging skills that are the real reasons aircraft crash.
I'm one of the crazy people who think the buffer should be set on the basis of an objective assessment of the objective and comparative risks, and the various costs of mitigating them.
I realise that stuffing private citizens around is zero cost so far as a government authority is concerned, but I'd be grateful if someone would set out the probabilities of an aircraft in an overshoot from 12 at WLM colliding with a light aircraft 4nm away at 500', not just the melodramatic cost.
I realise that stuffing private citizens around is zero cost so far as a government authority is concerned, but I'd be grateful if someone would set out the probabilities of an aircraft in an overshoot from 12 at WLM colliding with a light aircraft 4nm away at 500', not just the melodramatic cost.
Apparently a double go around from intersecting runways at YMML is a "move on, nothing to see here" event. Apparently, there is no risk because there's a "guarantee" the aircraft won't collide.
Apparently it's OK for aircraft to be within a few dozen metres of each other on approach to parallel runways at a D airport, because there's a "guarantee" they won't collide.
But if there's light aircraft 4 nms away at 500', the probabilities and risks of a collision from an overshoot from 12 at WLM are too high and unacceptable.
I know the answer: It's in your big book of procedures and you are just minions "guaranteeing" separation.
Apparently it's OK for aircraft to be within a few dozen metres of each other on approach to parallel runways at a D airport, because there's a "guarantee" they won't collide.
But if there's light aircraft 4 nms away at 500', the probabilities and risks of a collision from an overshoot from 12 at WLM are too high and unacceptable.
I know the answer: It's in your big book of procedures and you are just minions "guaranteeing" separation.
Nobody has said the double go-around was a non-event - LAHSO has been suspended at night until new procedures are in place.
The answer is "it's not in our big book of procedures so therefore we can't do it". For better or worse that's the way ATC works - if it's not in the book we can't do it.
The answer is "it's not in our big book of procedures so therefore we can't do it". For better or worse that's the way ATC works - if it's not in the book we can't do it.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice one, Gerry111, in respect of posts #61, #62, and #63.
I had the parallel thought of 'why' as well when I saw the line deleted about not being able to hide behind behind 'gutless anonymity.'
I truly don't give a bugger. My line about 'an implied threat' was just in unison with the (mostly) friendly argy-bargy that goes on in this forum. It was a dig to get a reaction and nothing more.
I suppose I got that reaction, but no offence was taken from the original post, and Dick should have let it stand.
The arguments we have on PPRruNne are pretty healthy. Dick sometimes sails close to the wind, but it would be a pretty boring debate if we were all PC and of a universally like-mind.
Plus Dick is not hard to shoot down when it comes to facts over emotion!
I'd truly miss his sprays if he ever retreated from the field of combat!
I had the parallel thought of 'why' as well when I saw the line deleted about not being able to hide behind behind 'gutless anonymity.'
I truly don't give a bugger. My line about 'an implied threat' was just in unison with the (mostly) friendly argy-bargy that goes on in this forum. It was a dig to get a reaction and nothing more.
I suppose I got that reaction, but no offence was taken from the original post, and Dick should have let it stand.
The arguments we have on PPRruNne are pretty healthy. Dick sometimes sails close to the wind, but it would be a pretty boring debate if we were all PC and of a universally like-mind.
Plus Dick is not hard to shoot down when it comes to facts over emotion!
I'd truly miss his sprays if he ever retreated from the field of combat!
Lead Balloon - you should put your submission to ICAO and get the separation standards changed.
The answer is "it's not in our big book of procedures so therefore we can't do it". For better or worse that's the way ATC works - if it's not in the book we can't do it.
It boggles my mind to think how hard it would be for a lightie at 500' off Stockton beach and an aircraft on an overshoot off WLM 12 to deliberately collide with each other. To deliberately collide. If we then substitute pilots who aren't trying to collide ...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gerry111, ya can't knock a bloke too much for holding particular views, regardless of the fact that those views may be out there where the buses don't run.
It's just that sometimes, IMHO, Dick lets passion and opinion substitute for sustainable argument. He was a total pain when I was working for a living: but that's part and parcel.
From my perspective, the interminable consumption of time, as a consequence of Dick's missives, was something I didn't need; but that's the way the system works. Every correspondent with a bitch, no matter how absurd, is entitled to a measured, polite, factual and dispassionate reply. Air Force was always scrupulous in responding.
At the end of the day, and despite that embuggerance of rebutting arguments that wasted my time, the fish would always appear in the barrel once the facts were sifted!
It's just that sometimes, IMHO, Dick lets passion and opinion substitute for sustainable argument. He was a total pain when I was working for a living: but that's part and parcel.
From my perspective, the interminable consumption of time, as a consequence of Dick's missives, was something I didn't need; but that's the way the system works. Every correspondent with a bitch, no matter how absurd, is entitled to a measured, polite, factual and dispassionate reply. Air Force was always scrupulous in responding.
At the end of the day, and despite that embuggerance of rebutting arguments that wasted my time, the fish would always appear in the barrel once the facts were sifted!
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly through Willy most weeks - VFR helicopter.
Most of the time I use the sea lane, and very rarely get held and the mil guys (and girls) I speak to are almost always helpful and happy to be so.
That said, I have always wondered why the sea lane does not operate like Victor One or R405. Both of those spaces are very busy with traffic from SY and BK, yet it all seems to work perfectly, and without delays.
Also the Dungog lane (which I sometimes use) is part of Willy and requires no clearance. Perhaps Dick is right and it is time for a change ? Maybe harmonise the two lanes something like Victor One ?
Also, on the occasions I have wanted airways from (say) Maitland to Seal Rocks, I have been granted it, except on a couple of occasions when F18's were running around. Although someone told me recently that you now need to file a flight plan - surely that's not correct ? (If so, we are going backwards, not forwards).
I'd be interested in comments.
Arrrj
Most of the time I use the sea lane, and very rarely get held and the mil guys (and girls) I speak to are almost always helpful and happy to be so.
That said, I have always wondered why the sea lane does not operate like Victor One or R405. Both of those spaces are very busy with traffic from SY and BK, yet it all seems to work perfectly, and without delays.
Also the Dungog lane (which I sometimes use) is part of Willy and requires no clearance. Perhaps Dick is right and it is time for a change ? Maybe harmonise the two lanes something like Victor One ?
Also, on the occasions I have wanted airways from (say) Maitland to Seal Rocks, I have been granted it, except on a couple of occasions when F18's were running around. Although someone told me recently that you now need to file a flight plan - surely that's not correct ? (If so, we are going backwards, not forwards).
I'd be interested in comments.
Arrrj
I think the impediment to turning the WLM over-water lane into something like V1 is that the WLM over-water lane is much closer to the approach and over-shoot of the runway (as well as to the Salt Ash A/G gunnery range).
That's not to say it can't be done. It is to say that the over-blowing of the risks and the ease with which private citizens and all but the biggest businesses can be stuffed around in Australia makes it a tough thing to get done unless someone like Dick is threatening political ruin to someone who wants to keep their cushy seat in government.
And the requirement to file a flight plan ... well... that little tussle has been going on for decades. They'd prefer the inconvenience of manually entering details into TAAATS be out-sourced to you. The subtle shifts in language and additions of 'requirements' in AIP happen often - slowly chipping away.
That's not to say it can't be done. It is to say that the over-blowing of the risks and the ease with which private citizens and all but the biggest businesses can be stuffed around in Australia makes it a tough thing to get done unless someone like Dick is threatening political ruin to someone who wants to keep their cushy seat in government.
And the requirement to file a flight plan ... well... that little tussle has been going on for decades. They'd prefer the inconvenience of manually entering details into TAAATS be out-sourced to you. The subtle shifts in language and additions of 'requirements' in AIP happen often - slowly chipping away.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LB, because I've been out of it for a while, I can't speak with authority.
But I well remember the arguments (pushed by whom) for a 'simple flight note' when it comes to VFR.
Modern, so-called 'automated systems,' load info of submitted details (FPLs) through NAIPS that gives controllers advance warning on the system of who's coming down the tube; which allows a little bit of space for pre-planning and accommodating VFR/IFR alike.
But when someone turns up on the boundary during a busy sequence unannounced, it's a big ask to expect immediate responsiveness.
It's not a matter of the
It's a matter of the controller not being blind-sided and having sufficient info to look after you. If you bitch because some poor bustard is trying to cope with a 'sh*t fight, while trying to manually enter your details into the system, because you were too obdurate to plan, then I have no sympathy whatsoever as regards your bitches.
Once, VFR planning was the norm and nobody seemed to have too many problems with that - the system worked!
Now, because of unrealistic expectations, fueled by the Airspace Messiah, it's just a litany of complaint for inconvenience that could be avoided with a 10 minute effort on your part. Stick in a plan!
If anyone wants to amplify or stick the boot in, feel free.
But I well remember the arguments (pushed by whom) for a 'simple flight note' when it comes to VFR.
Modern, so-called 'automated systems,' load info of submitted details (FPLs) through NAIPS that gives controllers advance warning on the system of who's coming down the tube; which allows a little bit of space for pre-planning and accommodating VFR/IFR alike.
But when someone turns up on the boundary during a busy sequence unannounced, it's a big ask to expect immediate responsiveness.
It's not a matter of the
inconvenience of manually entering details into TAAATS be out-sourced to you.
Once, VFR planning was the norm and nobody seemed to have too many problems with that - the system worked!
Now, because of unrealistic expectations, fueled by the Airspace Messiah, it's just a litany of complaint for inconvenience that could be avoided with a 10 minute effort on your part. Stick in a plan!
If anyone wants to amplify or stick the boot in, feel free.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How bout,
they seem to manage VFR aircraft in the rest of the world without a flight plan
with far denser traffic than anyone in Australia is ever likely to have to deal with.
Wouldn't be our system would it?
they seem to manage VFR aircraft in the rest of the world without a flight plan
with far denser traffic than anyone in Australia is ever likely to have to deal with.
Wouldn't be our system would it?
LB, it's nothing about inconvenience to me as a controller - it's inconvenience to you as a pilot. If I'm busy I simply may not have time to deal with your request if I have to enter the details but I may be able to if the details are already to hand. As you said in a previous post it's part of my job.
I'm sure you're familiar with "aviate, navigate, communicate"? Well guess what, we have priorities as well and separation is way up the top and entering flight plans for VFR pop-ups is pretty much last. It fits into the "I'll do it if when can" category which might mean not in the next 10 minutes.
You want to delay yourself more than necessary, feel free - stamping your feet and saying "it's not the American way" is one way to achieve that in the face of reality.
I'm sure you're familiar with "aviate, navigate, communicate"? Well guess what, we have priorities as well and separation is way up the top and entering flight plans for VFR pop-ups is pretty much last. It fits into the "I'll do it if when can" category which might mean not in the next 10 minutes.
You want to delay yourself more than necessary, feel free - stamping your feet and saying "it's not the American way" is one way to achieve that in the face of reality.
thorn bird, many places still have paper strips. If we don't put in a flight plan we don't get the full set of safety alerting features available. That's the price you pay for having a you beaut computerised system - data entry.
It's a matter of the controller not being blind-sided and having sufficient info to look after you. If you bitch because some poor bustard is trying to cope with a 'sh*t fight, while trying to manually enter your details into the system, because you were too obdurate to plan, then I have no sympathy whatsoever as regards your bitches.
You're conflating a failure to file a plan with a failure to plan. "VFR planning" is still the norm. Filing the plan you may end up flying can sometimes be difficult.
Sometimes the people who 'pop up' in the system have to "cope with a sh*t fight" as well.
It starts with trying to get access to the aircraft that you've selfishly presumed to park at a security controlled airport at which you're the bottom of the priority pile, despite the landing and parking fees you've paid. You get let in once all the important work of the security personnel has been completed.
And if you want to turn up early to get the aircraft out of the hangar and pre-flighted, so your friends can have an extra hour's beauty sleep, you have to hope the security people will not be coping with a sh*t fight when your friends turn up.
Then you find out that the swipe card AVGAS bowser isn't working. Too bad: the people responsible are dealing with another sh*t fight.
Meanwhile, the friends turn up and are let in, but then the friend's child decides he needs to do a poo. Alas, no toilets airside. (Ever been to Essendon or Parafield?) Kid's getting very uncomfortable and distressed, and the mother selfishly wants to take him to a toilet. So, time to escort them back to the security gate. After all, they don't have an ASIC. Let's hope the security guy can cope with the other sh*t fights with which he's dealing, to make time to let the kid and his mum back through the security gate so that you and they can selfishly go flying.
Alas, it's now an hour after you wanted to depart, and you don't have the fuel to implement Plan A, so it's time to think about Plan B. Plan B is to fly somewhere that may have fuel, quickly refuel and get back in the air because you're now up against an EOD that would not otherwise have been a problem. Of course, you can't confirm the places that may have AVGAS do have AVGAS, because they're swipe card facilities at the ghost towns poduced by the "innovation nation".
Once you arrive at the ghost town that (luckily) has fuel, you check the forecasts and you're not sure whether you'll be able to make it to your planned destination before EOD, but there are alternatives along the way.
So you quickly refuel and get your friends loaded up, hopefully after finding toilet facilities for those who may selfishly need them, because the sooner you get back in the air the more likely you are able to get to your Plan A destination in accordance with your selfish preferences.
Off you go.
And for my part, I don't give a flying f*ck if someone sitting on a chair on the ground is "coping with a sh*t fight" when I want to provide details of what I now consider I can do with the benefit of a clearer picture of what my real options are, after I've coped with all the sh*t fights that have been imposed on me in return for the privilege of paying a f*ckload of money. I'm happy to wait while the 'blind-sided' controller sorts out all of the sh*t fights in his or her lap, but don't insult my intelligence by accusing me of being "obdurate" or failing to plan, or by suggesting I'm an inconvenience.
Fortunately (and not surprisingly) my first-hand experience is that almost every 'pop up' interaction I've had with ATC/Centre has almost invariably been handled in a very professional, expeditious and courteous way.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, nice spray LB, but I'm not too sure as to how the majority of what you have written relates to my previous post.
A good read, nonetheless, and your last para was pretty fair.
Notwithstanding, all the stuff in the middle is a direct, or indirect, result of what's that term?? 'User pays,' I think! And who championed that, which has significantly contributed to a gutting of GA?
Once upon a time, there was a thing called the AVGAS levy; airports were federally owned, you kicked in a few bucks extra on your fuel bill and, presto, there was little of the BS you describe.
The security stuff might be a nightmare, but for mine there is a direct relationship between 'user pays' and the centralization of power that has culminated in totally idiot rules.
Many wished for a more liberal, cheaper, GA environment - it didn't happen! The acolytes got the exact opposite of what they wished for. Stupid is as stupid does!
A good read, nonetheless, and your last para was pretty fair.
Notwithstanding, all the stuff in the middle is a direct, or indirect, result of what's that term?? 'User pays,' I think! And who championed that, which has significantly contributed to a gutting of GA?
Once upon a time, there was a thing called the AVGAS levy; airports were federally owned, you kicked in a few bucks extra on your fuel bill and, presto, there was little of the BS you describe.
The security stuff might be a nightmare, but for mine there is a direct relationship between 'user pays' and the centralization of power that has culminated in totally idiot rules.
Many wished for a more liberal, cheaper, GA environment - it didn't happen! The acolytes got the exact opposite of what they wished for. Stupid is as stupid does!
