Huge Willy Airspace
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Sydney
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My apologies Lead Balloon - saw the wrong name there. My post was addressed to illusion. And I appreciate the advice and would always do what keeps the aircraft safe rather than follow ATC advice into a hill, of course, it's helpful if they are helpful rather than needing to force it.
No need to apologise to an obnoxious old poster like me, A101.
Just stay safe!
Just stay safe!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canberra
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick (or his ghost writer) do make a good point....did I say that! Why is all RAAF R airspace class C procedures? This makes sense at maybe 1 or 2 locations. Why not E over D at the others?
Alternatively why have R airspace at some locations? Why not give the RAAF a sector/approach allocation of civil airspace to administer with a special priority system for aircraft operating within a distance from the base to facilitate Military operations? (Oakey for example)
Surely we can do better.
P.S Willy is not a great example Dick as they have effin fast jets, but youve always had an agenda with Willy
Alternatively why have R airspace at some locations? Why not give the RAAF a sector/approach allocation of civil airspace to administer with a special priority system for aircraft operating within a distance from the base to facilitate Military operations? (Oakey for example)
Surely we can do better.
P.S Willy is not a great example Dick as they have effin fast jets, but youve always had an agenda with Willy
WLM has two operational F/A-18 squadrons; 3 and 77 based there. (Plus the 2 Sqn Wedgetails.) I suspect one reason that they take up so much airspace is because of their training purposes. 2OCU do most of the Hawk to F/A-18 conversion training there. That includes refuelling from KC-30 aircraft and now tactical stuff with the Wedgetails.
But I do agree that the restrictions on the eastern side GA route are well over the top.
But I do agree that the restrictions on the eastern side GA route are well over the top.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: ACT
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So does anyone know why the coastal route is so low, and inflexible?
I recall heading south, after holding at Anna Bay at 1000 for about ten minutes, that my request to descend to 500 due weather was refused multiple times. Maybe it's because they wanted to keep us on radar, but was there seriously traffic below us ??
And has anyone ever been granted clearance to deviate from the corridor due weather (e.g. cutting the corner to avoid the usual Port Stephens low cloud)?
I recall heading south, after holding at Anna Bay at 1000 for about ten minutes, that my request to descend to 500 due weather was refused multiple times. Maybe it's because they wanted to keep us on radar, but was there seriously traffic below us ??
And has anyone ever been granted clearance to deviate from the corridor due weather (e.g. cutting the corner to avoid the usual Port Stephens low cloud)?
Also Comms are bad up that way so you might not be able to communicate with atc if you descend too low. You can probably get a deviation from track if you wanted but it would be based on other traffic around.
Dick: I live near the field and counted at least 8 different hornets take off for when you're talking about and I believe they managed to transit to Richmond under something called an 'IFR flight plan'. Personally I don't know much about how they operate so I'm just assuming. I'm also assuming that they have massive chunks of airspace because when they train they do a lot of manoeuvring which at 400 bills probably uses up a fair chunk of sky. When transiting to Richmond they wouldn't be manoeuvring any more than an airliner which would be why they manage to get through that venture unscathed even without the whole eastern side of Australia's airspace closing.
I hope my application of common sense cleared up a few of your questions, Dick.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a matter, boys and girls, of just chewing on the same bone. Time after time, after time. Like a dog that chases a parked car.
There are good reasons that the Willy CTR is Class C. And that goes to a mix of fast jets, Wedgetail, refuellers, RPT that you could have your bum strapped into as SLF, guaranteed separation, and not having an 'aluminium shower' that would really cruel your day because separation is effectively handed to the LCD bumbling through under Class D procedures.
If anyone seriously wants Class D procedures in that mix, then they have a death wish. The RAAF always saw this combination coming and did not compromise, or wilt, in the face of the dog chasing the parked car.
I've been out of it for quite a few years now, but I was one of those 'incompetent leaders' in the RAAF. I don't regret a single decision I made in respect of beating off idiot proposals and protecting military and RPT flyers (with pax) alike.
Ask USAF fighter-pilots, over here for some intensive exercises, what they prefer. It was universally 'don't go where we've gone!'
There are good reasons that the Willy CTR is Class C. And that goes to a mix of fast jets, Wedgetail, refuellers, RPT that you could have your bum strapped into as SLF, guaranteed separation, and not having an 'aluminium shower' that would really cruel your day because separation is effectively handed to the LCD bumbling through under Class D procedures.
If anyone seriously wants Class D procedures in that mix, then they have a death wish. The RAAF always saw this combination coming and did not compromise, or wilt, in the face of the dog chasing the parked car.
I've been out of it for quite a few years now, but I was one of those 'incompetent leaders' in the RAAF. I don't regret a single decision I made in respect of beating off idiot proposals and protecting military and RPT flyers (with pax) alike.
Ask USAF fighter-pilots, over here for some intensive exercises, what they prefer. It was universally 'don't go where we've gone!'
Thread Starter
I have never complained about being held for military traffic. We have so little in Aus it's not an issue
But being held at 500' at Anna bay for 15 minutes , because a Beech 1900 is landing from the west and the 1930s military rules require the missed approach path to be protected , is ridiculous.
And I don't believe for a second that reasonable US fighter pilots are opposed to the way the airspace is shared in the USA.
But being held at 500' at Anna bay for 15 minutes , because a Beech 1900 is landing from the west and the 1930s military rules require the missed approach path to be protected , is ridiculous.
And I don't believe for a second that reasonable US fighter pilots are opposed to the way the airspace is shared in the USA.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not a 1930s rule, it's universal and stressed in the ATC learning academy. In fact a trainee can fail an exercise if it isn't done. It's similar to braking distance in a car. The overshoot is more critical today than in the 1930s with higher closing speeds. A go around combined with a warning indication and reduced manoeuvrability makes things hard enough without a light aircraft being there and the pilot replying "say again" to a critical instruction.
Running a tight sequence, 16/07 (at Sydney) with SIMOPS operating, protected for a possible missed approach on RWY 07, helicopter holding to the North East (and clear), demanded to know they hadn't been cleared to land to the heliport.
Last edited by sunnySA; 5th Mar 2016 at 05:14.
Yet apparently a "double go-around" is fine if there's any lateral separation between the three aluminium tubes full of punters involved.
My recollection may be inaccurate, but I thought someone on PPrune asked what the separation standard was for aircraft that could do go arounds from approaches to intersecting runways, and the answer was, in effect, any lateral separation was enough.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lateral separation is a procedural tool and the position where there is one mile between the possible tracks of two aircraft after applying navigation tolerances. E,g. With 40 degrees between two VOR radials, the lateral separation point along those radials is about eight miles from the aid.
In a double go around, the ADC will use visual separation until a radar standard is established. After that, the aircraft will be transferred to the TCU.
There is a complete section in MATS covering visual separation, how and when to apply it. ATCs are trained on double go arounds in the simulator. They are rare but easily managed despite the public's and Nick Xenophon's perception.
In a double go around, the ADC will use visual separation until a radar standard is established. After that, the aircraft will be transferred to the TCU.
There is a complete section in MATS covering visual separation, how and when to apply it. ATCs are trained on double go arounds in the simulator. They are rare but easily managed despite the public's and Nick Xenophon's perception.
Yet a bugshmasher at 500' 4 nautical miles off the end of runway 12 at WLM creates a higher probability, less manageable risk in the event of an overshoot?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dunno as I haven't worked Willy tower, just civilian, however, in the event of a go around, the lighty can't be in the overshoot path until the go around has reached 1500 to give the required 1000 ft vertical separation as the ADC is unlikely to see the lighty and probably doesn't hold a TMA radar rating and can't use "performance separation." The ADC can only use established standards..
And some of us are merely pointing out that the "established standards" are sometimes a bit of a joke, when purportedly justified on the basis of objective and comparative risk. (Not the fault of the minions in the system of course.)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are ICAO standards. As hopefully my final comment on this thread, ICAO requires ATC to apply separation which many countries do as a minimum whereas Australia and other countries also apply separation assurance.
For instance, with applying separation between aircraft, a controller may not act until an event occurs and then turn, descend or climb an aircraft to maintain separation. With separation assurance the controller will manage traffic so if there is something unexpected, the aircraft will remain separated if the controller can't intervene. Nothing like a student doing a go around with an open microphone and ATC can only sit and watch.
For instance, with applying separation between aircraft, a controller may not act until an event occurs and then turn, descend or climb an aircraft to maintain separation. With separation assurance the controller will manage traffic so if there is something unexpected, the aircraft will remain separated if the controller can't intervene. Nothing like a student doing a go around with an open microphone and ATC can only sit and watch.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You never cease to amaze, Dick - post #47.
A nice qualification as regards 'reasonable.' Interpreted as they agree with you.
I have posted this before in respect of 'shared airspace in the USA,' but you conveniently ignored it - didn't suit your argument, I suppose. This bloke doesn't come across as an anally retentive idiot and the article comes from US AOPA:
How Low Do They Go? - AOPA
There's plenty of lines in that that article that I could highlight - but I'll settle on one:
From my perspective, Dick, you'd trade 'smart' for 'legal.'
And I don't believe for a second that reasonable US fighter pilots are opposed to the way the airspace is shared in the USA.
I have posted this before in respect of 'shared airspace in the USA,' but you conveniently ignored it - didn't suit your argument, I suppose. This bloke doesn't come across as an anally retentive idiot and the article comes from US AOPA:
How Low Do They Go? - AOPA
There's plenty of lines in that that article that I could highlight - but I'll settle on one:
"It's see and avoid," Vic repeatedly stated with a shake of his head. "Even though it's legal, it doesn't make it smart."
Thread Starter
If the tower owned the low level airspace to the first step and if it was class D for at least civilian operations traffic information could be given to both aircraft .
No long holding over the ocean at 500'. It will happen one day. Probably after more uneccessary deaths caused by pathetic military non leadership. You watch. And I will hold them accountable
The morale in the RAAF must be low because the workers must know how incompetent their leadership is. Can't even copy the best from around the world. .
No long holding over the ocean at 500'. It will happen one day. Probably after more uneccessary deaths caused by pathetic military non leadership. You watch. And I will hold them accountable
The morale in the RAAF must be low because the workers must know how incompetent their leadership is. Can't even copy the best from around the world. .