Secret airspace meeting at Bankstown Airport
Have learned this morning that neither owners or operators of the Oaks Airfield or Wedderburn Airfield were invited to attend the 'consultation' meeting last week run by the DITRDCA/Airservices/CASA. Both airfields are directly impacted by the proposed airspace changes that will come into effect June 2026. I have also been made aware that neither airfield were invited to any of the 'broad and extensive consultation meetings' that the government claims to have worked through between 2017 and 2023.
I have lost count as to how many times AOPA Australia has publicly called out the Department, Airservices and CASA with respect to their so-called consultations and the genuine lack of genuine representative composition. Time and time again, these consultations are manipulated and gamed by the government.
But, is anyone surprised to learn this?
I have lost count as to how many times AOPA Australia has publicly called out the Department, Airservices and CASA with respect to their so-called consultations and the genuine lack of genuine representative composition. Time and time again, these consultations are manipulated and gamed by the government.
But, is anyone surprised to learn this?
This sounds like it could be headed for a law suit, however you’d want some very deep pockets to attempt to do so.
) - so no matter how much surrounding GA might stick their hands in the air and yell "but!.. but!!..", CASA, Airservices and various govt departments involved will all just claim they're just doing their jobs, go away.A brand new International Airport in the middle of Class G airspace would be.. embarrassing!
It sucks - but we all know that whether you're riding a bicycle or flying an aircraft, no matter what the law says, if the Little Guy doesn't give way to the Big Guy, he'll get run over.
The Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR), the only section in CASA formed by Act of Parliament in 2007, is I understand responsible for all airspace decisions, not AsA or other sections of CASA. The OAR has within it representatives of the DoD (RAAF etc) but since it’s establishment and the more recent demise of the RAPACs it seems to have lost its authority to other managers in CASA who don’t seem to understand what it is all about. To add fuel to the fire AsA in recent times seems to want to do its own consultation to the exclusion of various interested aviation groups/identities. When the OAR was formed, there was discussion as to if it should be in CASA or the Dept of Transport - it went to CASA. Now the Dept has surfaced on this issue for unknown reasons or explanation. It seems to stink of political influence by folk with no operational knowledge or experience. It would have been more appropriate for the OAR to have called the meeting. (I would hope that they are intimately involved). Dick, you are correct in that discussions need to be about safety and fair and simple design.
It’s all politics: The politics of noise complaints and environmental activism. Those politics completely swamp any trivial considerations like the needs or facilitation of general aviation. Numerous important electorates need to be ‘massaged’.
The confidentiality facade is intended primarily to keep local residents and environmental activists in the dark for as long as practicable. Once the flight paths and noise maps become public, the ‘fun’ will begin. General aviation is minor collateral damage.
As noted earlier, it’s a fait accompli. There maybe some faux options to feed the chooks in a faux consultation process, but most of the detail has already been settled.
(BTW: There is no separate OAR ‘section’ of CASA created by an Act of Parliament. The Airspace Act confers functions and powers on one person: “CASA”. The OAR is merely an artificial division created within (now) CASA and the name is a remnant of the previous arrangement wherein Airservices had the powers. OAR could be called ARSECLOWN and it would make no difference. ‘OAR’ is the same as ‘Avmed’. Just a name made up for administrative convenience. There is no power given to “Avmed” by Part 67 of CASR. It’s given to “CASA”. Then “CASA” - currently Ms Spence - decides to whom CASA will delegate CASA’s powers, whether that’s to issue a medical certificate or designate a volume of airspace.)
The confidentiality facade is intended primarily to keep local residents and environmental activists in the dark for as long as practicable. Once the flight paths and noise maps become public, the ‘fun’ will begin. General aviation is minor collateral damage.
As noted earlier, it’s a fait accompli. There maybe some faux options to feed the chooks in a faux consultation process, but most of the detail has already been settled.
(BTW: There is no separate OAR ‘section’ of CASA created by an Act of Parliament. The Airspace Act confers functions and powers on one person: “CASA”. The OAR is merely an artificial division created within (now) CASA and the name is a remnant of the previous arrangement wherein Airservices had the powers. OAR could be called ARSECLOWN and it would make no difference. ‘OAR’ is the same as ‘Avmed’. Just a name made up for administrative convenience. There is no power given to “Avmed” by Part 67 of CASR. It’s given to “CASA”. Then “CASA” - currently Ms Spence - decides to whom CASA will delegate CASA’s powers, whether that’s to issue a medical certificate or designate a volume of airspace.)
Airspace Procedures Design
Lead Balloon is spot on.
Flight Path and Procedures design is one of the most complex activities in Airspace Management and there are precious few people in this country actually competent to carry out the tasks.
I am both CPL (with instrument rating) and ATC licenced and experienced but I am sure as heck not qualified to carry out procedures design even in the SYD basin that I know well.
Skills needed include heavy aircraft instrument operations both normal and engine out, knowledge of modern avionics functional capability, database coding, deep knowledge of ICAO PANS/OPS, as well as discussions with Approach Controllers as to how any option would work in practical terms, and a lot more - it is genuinely complex stuff in design let alone reducing to charts and instructions.
CASA has at least one very highly qualifed and respected such prodedures designer/auditor (recently down from two).
I am not aware of any in the Department of everything and nor is there any reason they should employ such people even if they could find them.
So what on earth is the Department doing trying to run such a very technically complex issue other than imposing politics above both safety and access to airspace?
Flight Path and Procedures design is one of the most complex activities in Airspace Management and there are precious few people in this country actually competent to carry out the tasks.
I am both CPL (with instrument rating) and ATC licenced and experienced but I am sure as heck not qualified to carry out procedures design even in the SYD basin that I know well.
Skills needed include heavy aircraft instrument operations both normal and engine out, knowledge of modern avionics functional capability, database coding, deep knowledge of ICAO PANS/OPS, as well as discussions with Approach Controllers as to how any option would work in practical terms, and a lot more - it is genuinely complex stuff in design let alone reducing to charts and instructions.
CASA has at least one very highly qualifed and respected such prodedures designer/auditor (recently down from two).
I am not aware of any in the Department of everything and nor is there any reason they should employ such people even if they could find them.
So what on earth is the Department doing trying to run such a very technically complex issue other than imposing politics above both safety and access to airspace?
If there's anyone around CASA who does just happen to be good at Flight Path and Procedures Design there is no way they'll want them anywhere near this discussion. As I and others have posted above, the airspace design was finalised months ago.. this is the 'force-feeding it to the public' stage.
Just like the recent Master Plan issues at various airports, I'm sure there are ways to fight it (including but not limited to taking your complaint to the Minister) - but you can be sure the Department of Everything never run a race without a head start.
The preliminary flight paths for WSI will be assessed for their environmental impact under the Australian Government’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. A draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the preliminary flight paths will be released for public exhibition in the second half of 2023. The draft EIS will examine the noise, social and environmental impacts of the proposed flight paths and approvals will be subject to regulatory and community review and comment during the public exhibition period to guide the final flight path design.
In the lead up to the draft EIS being released, the preliminary flight paths are being designed and tested by an Expert Steering Group established by the Australian Government, which consists of technical experts and government agencies including the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Airservices Australia. For more information about the role, structure and governance of the Expert Steering Group, read the Terms of Reference PDF: 386 KB
In the lead up to the draft EIS being released, the preliminary flight paths are being designed and tested by an Expert Steering Group established by the Australian Government, which consists of technical experts and government agencies including the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Airservices Australia. For more information about the role, structure and governance of the Expert Steering Group, read the Terms of Reference PDF: 386 KB
Having published the “preliminary” flight paths, the fun has therefore begun.
Flight paths released? You reckon??
For those who think the flight paths have been released, try this:
https://www.wsiflightpaths.gov.au/re...ochure-section
now go down to where it says "Flight Path Design Process" and click on that.............
PAGE NOT FOUND.
So where are the actual details? Take off 05, turn left when? at 2000 ft, at 3 miles, ???? reach 5000 ft by one mile? Just minor interesting details sought.
https://www.wsiflightpaths.gov.au/re...ochure-section
now go down to where it says "Flight Path Design Process" and click on that.............
PAGE NOT FOUND.
So where are the actual details? Take off 05, turn left when? at 2000 ft, at 3 miles, ???? reach 5000 ft by one mile? Just minor interesting details sought.
For those who think the flight paths have been released, try this:
https://www.wsiflightpaths.gov.au/re...ochure-section
now go down to where it says "Flight Path Design Process" and click on that.............
https://www.wsiflightpaths.gov.au/re...ochure-section
now go down to where it says "Flight Path Design Process" and click on that.............
It doesn't say much - only that we won't know anything definite until detailed design (the paperwork generation stage) is complete sometime around 2026, and that "The community, aerodrome operators and airspace users will be consulted in determining the final flight paths." - that word "consulted" meaning what they're doing now ...but of course that they don't actually have to listen.
So enjoy your steep turns/stalls over WSI whilst you can!
Last edited by PiperCameron; 5th Sep 2023 at 01:05.
Thread Starter
There has clearly been an airspace chart produced as that was shown at the meeting.
It appears there is lots of en route class D which was previously class G.
I have heard claims that VFR will have to flight plan and get an airway's clearance to get in and out of the lane at Parramatta.
Nothing like that at LAX!
Why the continuing secrecy?
Nancy Bird Walton airport will be Class C. That sounds logical.
It appears there is lots of en route class D which was previously class G.
I have heard claims that VFR will have to flight plan and get an airway's clearance to get in and out of the lane at Parramatta.
Nothing like that at LAX!
Why the continuing secrecy?
Nancy Bird Walton airport will be Class C. That sounds logical.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 6th Sep 2023 at 22:57.
The following users liked this post:
You’re the only advocate for GA with any political power, Dick. It would be great if you could flush the details of the ‘proposed’ airspace boundaries and classes into the open.
The following 4 users liked this post by Lead Balloon:
Nah. All of the advances in technology over the last 30 or so years will mean the controlled airspace around YSSY, YSRI and YWSI will be smaller than the equivalents were 30 or so years ago and there will be VFR lanes across the top.
VFR lanes across the top, very funny 
