Willy Nilly
 

:D Dick - this is one occasion I agree with you 100%.
Now, each of the correspondents to your post has his/her own agenda, be he/she a knuck or otherwise (they need a ride in a 1960 Dak - y'know, where 25 of 'em get on, and 50 get off), but they are all, just in this case, wrong.
If ATC is ATC, then it should be ATC. That's simple enough.
But apparently not.
Why our military fast jets seem less able to operate in a mixed environment than, say, one little SE Asian nation where the Jet Jocks firewall the throttle and then hang on for dear life, passing 20000' before they realise they are off the ground, then have to execute a 20 mile final from a SIA as they don't fly circuits, is beyond me. (By the way, they still have F4 symbols on the side below the cockpit canopy to show how many they shot down).
Yes Dick, your right this time - they really do need to extricate themselves from the Halls of Russell and reach for the 21st century.
Pity you weren't right in the unmentionable year - but I'm with you on this one.:O

FTRPLT says, ".....therefore implying a lack of professional ability amongst senior RAAF officers for the duties that they are trained for and have often carried out in real time combat operations."

Yeah, let's not overdo it here. I am proud of our men/women in uniform. We owe them very much, but let's also not forget a certain one star general not long ago, leaving confidential documents by way of a CD ROM in a Qantas Club computer. If she worked for the Packers or the Lowe's or the Harveys & did the same, the outcome would probably be different - not a promotion to 2 stars.

In my humble opinion most military ATC, couldn't organise a root in a brothel.

The last time I went into Williamtown, visual through 10,000' and happy to take a visual approach with no other traffic, but oh no get vectored out for the ILS which added another 20 minutes to the flight time.

Similar to Darwin in the late 80's, two or three VFR aircraft and you would be held OCTA at Wildman Lagoon or wherever, round and round in circles.

Always reckon if Darwin RAAF ATC been on duty in February 1942, the Japanese Imperial Air Force would have been held north of Bathurst Island as clearance to enter CTA or the CTR would not have been available.

Bell
If she had been a civvy she probably would have left with a golden handshake from the company she was employed with worth a few million dollars!
However I do agree, if it had been a junior officer I think they may have missed out on promotion for awhile.
Station 8.
I've known a few military ATCs over the years. There are alot of them who are very good at organising the activity you talk about, god bless their cute little cotton socks.

Challenge to Dick
 

Dick,

Please start a thread stating that the sun rises in the east, (or sets in the west or perhaps that night follows day). I have a hypothesis to test.

Telephonenumber


I subscribe to the same hypothesis. That all and sundry will oppose Dick Smith on principle alone.

The arrogance of Australian aviation!

MJ

mjbow2 - yes, just like you will step in and support him every time.

The whole point of the thread was "Why am I being delayed down the coast at Willy?"

The answer is that as the airspace is a restricted area, it is Class C. In Class C, VFR must be separated from IFR. A requirment of A010 by crossing the coast will not work as firstly, it needs to be 1000ft separation and secondly, the VFR must be 1NM off the coast. That is the standard - that's it. No ifs or buts.

To make it different, one must change the airspace classification system and/or separation rules. All that just to allow an unrestricted passage, whilst getting a free control service, once every 25 years. Dick, if you want to do it, feel free. Off you go, and good luck.

BUT - please do not belittle the controllers in the RAAF (or anywhere else) about performing their job. They are applying the rules as they are published. Get something else published and I'm sure they will be happy to apply the new rules.

Thanks for reading.

Showa.

ASKARI, you try to explain that the holding at Williamtown is only done for safety. If this is so, why does the military close down over Christmas and CTAF procedures apply?

There are weekends when some of the largest passenger movements take place but the tower is not activated at all.

It sounds to me as if it has nothing to do with a genuine interest in the safety of airline passengers, but keeping the status quo. What do you think?

Happy New Year to everyone. I’ve been temporarily out of touch so I will try to answer as many of the points that have been put up as I can.

Lodown, I agree that the primary purpose of military airspace is to allow for training in warlike scenarios. However I’m not referring to aircraft being held when the other traffic is military. I’m clearly referring to the situation when the other traffic is a civilian aircraft. Please read my post again.

Barkly1992, retire? You would have to be joking. Churchill became the Prime Minister of Great Britain when he was 63 – which is my age. No, I don’t compare myself with Churchill, but if he could win a war at that age, surely I can complete some pretty simple but important aviation reforms.

Dick Smith wrote

Activate the airspace on weekends and public holidays.:ok:

Ftrplt, no, it is not

The unnecessary holding is costing our industry money and reducing safety. The costs don’t affect me personally, however the extra costs do affect general aviation businesses that cannot afford them.

Atlas Shrugged, no I have not experienced an engine failure in the precise way you have described. However, how does our uncontrolled airspace work under these circumstances? As we have lots of airline aircraft operating in uncontrolled airspace, and as they can all experience an engine failure on take off, there obviously has to be a system in place which stops them from colliding with other aircraft when having an engine failure.

When you consider the situation I described at Williamtown, if there was an engine failure the aircraft in the lane would hear the departing aircraft report an engine failure. Surely the pilot of the aircraft in the lane would look out and avoid the aircraft with the engine failure. It is called a traffic information service – it is the basis of all of our movements in uncontrolled airspace, including IFR movements in cloud.

Ozbiggles, my post was not a

My post was a very directed criticism of a small group of “no decision makers” in Canberra. Surely if they change their minds on a decision they have promised, they should at least have the ethics and the guts to say so and explain why. They haven’t done this.

I’ll say it again. I have been told clearly by senior defence people of a number of changes they are planning. These changes have never come in, and there has never been an explanation of why. I consider that not only leads to competency comments, but comments on basic ethics. I think you will find that there are real problems with a certain group of people in the military hierarchy in Canberra. As I have mentioned before, just look at the scandals and incompetence of the defence purchasing.

Dick,
I wouldn't align myself with Churchill, as First Sea Lord in WW1, he was intimately involved in the debacle of the Gallipoli landings.
Also, if you would like to check the Notams, Willy zone has been active over the Xmas period due to the number of civilian RPT using the airport.

Showa Cho, you state:

My suggestion is that you read my initial post again. I stated:

You refer to the restrictions because the airspace is Class C. In fact the Government has a policy to move to the North American NAS. You will find that under NAS in North America, the separation “standards” are completely different. For example, where there is one radar head being used (which is the situation at Williamtown) the separation “standard” between IFR and VFR is “green in between” or “target resolution.” Also the dimensions of the NAS Class C are 5 miles at low level, not 24 miles.

There is absolutely no doubt that if the people in the military in Canberra made the decisions as they have promised, and followed Government policy, there would be no need for holding at Williamtown.

Once again, I’m not blaming the controllers. Just 10 days ago I flew through the Williamtown airspace and I think the “A team” must have been operating. A Virgin aircraft was coming in from the north and I was not held. The Virgin aircraft was asked to remain 1 mile from the coast and I was not delayed. It just shows that by either using the existing procedures correctly, or by the “bosses” introducing procedures that are more modern than the 1950s, that aircraft can be handled without unnecessary delays and costs.

Dick, thank you for clearing up where your anger is directed.

However, the NAS class C will not be applicable to restricted areas, will it? A restricted area is not promulgated to allow better traffic management for VFR transits. It has a purpose - to utilise the airspace for military flying training.

The current RAAF controllers can correct me if I'm wrong, but the CTR at WLM down to the ground encompasses a couple of live fire ranges an the like. Should that be class G too?

Thanks.

Showa.

... ahhemm :suspect: .. and what 'class' of airspace is than then???

Scurvy, you ask

Scurvy, it is Class C airspace. The ICAO classification system states that in Class C, IFR are separated from VFR. Just as in Australia we have different standards to that set by ICAO in many cases – and we have notified a difference – the same applies in the USA. I can assure you that it results in a very safe airspace system that thousands of passengers fly in each year in the USA.

... would that be the overlaping E, D, C 'difference' ??? :rolleyes: :hmm: ... nup .. you cannot! ;)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the military operates if the twr is shut down. So there in CTAF theres already a significant decrease in traffic. If I fly coastal in WLM CTAF, I still will hold for any Airbus on finals over the water.

If I had EFATO out of willy, the last thing on my mind would be making a report. Mix up pitch up power up gear up flap up identify test fix or feather assess climb performance am I on fire where am I going to put down. Likewise, the time required to spot and avoid the airborne aircraft from the lane would, I think, be fairly small.

I am not, contrary to mjbow's opinion, being contray for the sake of being contrary, I simply don't see a problem with having to hold on occasion if I want to fly through MIL airspace. If it's that time or cost critical, I would personally plan up the inland lane, avoiding any potential for holding, and airspace fees as well. Again, I'm not in any way suggesting my point of view is any better than Dick's, it's just my opinion.:ok:

Yarrr

They still launch jets when the tower is off. They get a Cagris running. Also, when things were dire a few years ago, the hornets would depart VFR into the big area off the coast all by their lonesome. My fingers are still sore from typing the ESIRs from that little adventure.

So I'm still up for only a 20?
Mr Smith one reason for an apparent delay in what you believe you may have been told about Military airspace is that there is a war on....and maybe there are more important things going on.
in fact there are two wars on
and a peace keeping operation.
in fact two peace keeping operations and
and flood relief op.
and a number of other operations going on,
hence a small number of holds for people to stay out of the way of RPTs probably rates exactly where it belongs in the pecking order.
Of course unless you want to take a few more people out of 44Wg instead of being in Baggers of the Ghan, or the Sudan...
I can't believe I'm sticking up for ATCs!!!!!!!!