Radarinfo
 

Ref the RAAFATC staff performing CAGRS, yes they can use the radar display and yes ,you will be idientified if your IFR and filed a plan.

Remember they are ATC's using the system they are trained to use day in day out when active.

The ADATS system works the same regardless of the service you are provided. You submit your plan, it is addressed at Ausfic in BN Centre and sent electronically to all relevant ATC units just like an e-mail. Each ATC unit has its own unique address. The computer recevies your plan and when your within a set parameter from the field, your label is displayed on the screen for the controller. The code is generated by each centre 45 mins prior to your departure and is correlated to your SSR return once airborne and a label displayed. All your departures, changes to ETD, nav gear, rego etc, it all comes through into our displays. As you will have been issued a discrete 4 digit code for an IFR flight, the ATC doing Cagrs can still use your label and radar identification will be monitored. There is nothing to stop the RAAF Cagro passing you radar derived traffic info and mode C info. Rememeber they are rated and endorsed controllers performing this task. Also if VFR and you call at Nobbies for eg, you could again be issued a code from the Willy ADATS bin and this can be used. I'm not sure how they will run it but this is done at other units. Its only a couple of clicks on the screen to get a code. Also all Military radars are primary and SSR, so they will see you.

From a controllers point of view most of us don't like doing Cagrs and its actually very difficult not to jump in and control the traffic. Defineately better than CTAF but very frustrating actually when a simple heading or change of level can maintain separation but when doing Cagrs, we are not allowed to control acft, just update the traffic. Personally I would much rather take the airspace and control, it can be less work and traffic is positively separated. My opinion only.

Hope this helps.

For Toa and Mostly tossas, here are acouple of links about Willy.

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']http://www.maitlandmercury.com.au/news/local/news/general/raaf-put-in-jeopardy/1380063.aspx[/font][FONT='Arial','sans-serif'] Recent article from Def. Minister[/font]

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']http://cust.idl.com.au/0999000010/paul/raaf.htm[/font][FONT='Arial','sans-serif'] Bit of an old site but good history of the base. [/font]

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']http://www.airforce.gov.au/bases/williamtown.aspx[/font][FONT='Arial','sans-serif'] RAAF website[/font]

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']http://www.portstephens.nsw.gov.au/files/64910/File/PSCEconomicDevStrategy.pdf Port Stephens Shire Council report, have a look at chap 6[/font]

If AsA or CASA OAR , or anyone, are going to "invent" a new form of safety study it must be validated. This has not happened.

As Prof. O'Neill has said, "-subjective judgements can be very inaccurate"-

You have te be suspicious of a "safety study" which shows that Williamtown can operate without even a class D tower.

At least the radio operator at Williamtown will now be in the tower and have the assistance of a radar display.

And why would "the Government" want to keep any particular individual out of " airspace policy" - especially an individual who wants the policy set using a strict scientific criteria?

Could it be so those who resist change a catered for? I reckon so!

By " Government, do you mean the "Department" ?

Mostlytossas,
Your ignorance when it comes to those that defend Australia is astounding. I thought your reply to my last post was pure wind-up material.... I didn't reply because I thought it would show that you actually had me 'hook, line and sinker' for a while there (in the parlance of our times).
'My Dad and Uncles served in WW2, so I'm Mr Military!' Classic!! :ok:
Williamtown is Australia's major Fighter Base as well as the centre for excellence for FAC. It was there first, if you don't like the RAAFies using it, then pony up some tax dollars to put in a parallel rwy.
You can't poach kids from TAFE to become ATC either... the two qualities required are called SA and capacity. You cannot train either, you appear to have neither.
See you at the sushi bar.;)
GD

Dick,
What was the "safety study" that you refer to and do you have a link to it?

I'm curious to see what process was used by CASA and if the resulting fatique for the WILLY Atcos, when all traffic returns, was included in any risk assessment.

As Prof. O'Neill has said, "-subjective judgements can be very inaccurate"-
yeah Dick.... have a good hard look at that

Silly question time ....

So, the Willy Controllers have been recalled to provide a CAGRO service from their exisiting Controller Workstations, using their exisiting Radar Displays ...

Why aren't they just providing their normal Control function ?

Here is an interesting point. I have always understood that when the military do some training at Avalon – even in a King Air - they pay to have the tower manned. That is, they don’t want to fly around without controlled airspace.

I also understand it is the same with the C-17 when flying at tower airports – they either man the tower, or pay to have it manned.

Does anyone know the military regs in relation to this? Are they based on protecting passenger carrying operations, and if so is there an inconsistency in relation to the Christmas stand down at Williamtown?

By the way, I notice that the NOTAM says the airspace can become active at any time. Is this to become active to protect military transport aircraft?

C-change, have a look at the CASA Williamtown Aeronautical Study February 2008 and Williamtown Review October 2008 reports (see here).

Note that fatigue was not included, and they did not even look at the safety advantages of radar in preventing Controlled Flight Into Terrain accidents.

It is interesting to note that the chart shown on the last page of the October 08 report does not show where the figures came from.

Dick:

Twice on this thread you have made the following statement (my emphasis):These statements demonstrate how irrational you really can be on occasions and, if I was in charge of CASA, I would seriously consider taking legal action against you for possible defamation as your comments seem to be implying that CASA personnel are intentionally and corruptly abusing their powers and established due process. If these emotional statements are a true reflection of your normal thought processes and maturity, I am staggered that the previous Australlian Government ever saw fit to allow you to hold positions of seniority and influence in the previous CAA and CASA.

There is no doubt that safety cases can, on occasions, be flawed in that they were based on incorrect data or invallid assumptions but, in my experience, they are always conducted with the best of intentions by safety management staff and are NEVER FAKED as there are too many checks and balances within the Government system that prevent this from happening. In any case, Dick, do you honestly believe that anybody inside CASA would seriously put their whole career on line by faking a single safety case on something as insignificant as CAGRS vs ATC at Newcastle? Get real Dick, your comments are a good example of conspiracy theoretics at its worst!

In my personal view, the only flaw that I can see in Australia's aviation safety management processes is that some Government ministers and agencies are still failing to identify Dick Smith as the biggest single threat to the advancement of a safe and affordable aviation environment for Australia.

QSK, you are bringing up some interesting points on a very serious issue.

The same could have been said about the Wheat Board when the bureaucrats were writing fake invoices to hide the secret commissions to Saddam Hussein.

You state:

Yes, I do, in exactly the same way as bureaucrats put their careers on the line so Australia could sell wheat to Iraq. What other explanation could there be?

The reason CASA does not take any action in relation to my statements about fake safety cases is because they know that my comments are true. For example, why don’t they even make a public announcement in relation to this? Bruce Byron put out an announcement in relation to Williamtown being safe under a civil operated air/ground – just before the Minister decided to instruct the military to come back and offer a service using the radar displays.

I’ll give you one proven example of how they fake a safety case. One of the most important safety mitigators given to allow Williamtown to operate without air traffic control over the Christmas period was the fact that general aviation pilots had been educated on how to fly through the airspace outside the hours of Defence operation.

Look at the CASA October 2008 Williamtown Review here. Look at the Executive Summary on page 3. Paragraph 1.4 states:

(My underlining).

As shown in my solicitor’s letter to CASA (see here), this is a blatant lie.

The only “guidelines” published in the AOPA magazine were in relation to the airspace when it was active and a clearance was required. When this was pointed out to CASA in my solicitor’s letter, they simply stonewalled, did not answer the question, and maintained their safety study was accurate.

I can assure you that these people are going down the same line as those at the Wheat Board. It is really sad and I just hope it will be rectified before a major accident occurs.

QSK You say Government dept's never fake reports? What do you call WMD then 5 odd years later and god knows how many needless lives lost and maimed. Then there is the children overboard, even the Navy were trying to correct the reports but were told to shutup.
Having worked in the public service in a past life I can tell you it goes on all the time. Usually not a blatant lie like the above ( the Howard Govt perfected that ) it usually goes something like this. The Govt decides it would like a certain outcome so it makes that known to the relevant dept's. These public servants then go about doing the govt's bidding by having surveys, consulative meetings,etc with all different interest groups but, and here's the the important bit they keep control and only they know what everyone else proposed. They then formulate a proposal or three, option A,B,C etc with advantages, pro's and con's etc and only put the bits in it that suit their favored outcome. This is then presented to the Govt with the recommendation of option B being accepted for instance, which is of course the result they wanted to start with.
Beutiful aint it? If anyone complains after they say indignantly,but you were all consulted!
Sometimes the Dept's do this themselves and keep the Minister in the dark until the last minute to achieve the desired result too. After all realistically rarely does the minister of the day know much about the Dept he is responsible for or the work they do anyway. Depending on who is in Government at any time the members usually come from farmers, small business, unions, lawyers (heaps of them) or like Downer from father to son.
Most us mere mortals have neither the time to run for office or the inclination. You may laugh but that comedy show Yes Minister is VERY close to the bone and was written by someone with intimate knowledge of how goverment works.

Garudadude...Read my post again. The reason I put you in your box was because of your comments about my respect for the military. I told you I have every respect for them and why. Never claimed to be "Mr Military" far from it. If you had been watching this site for the past few days you would have read of my questions to C-Change and ToA and my appreciation to them for there well informed info.
You sound like your still in nappies ( with a tag like dude you'd have to be) grow up sonny.
Coz right now your still a ********!

People, get some perspective here...we started talking about the federal arm of aviation and we ended up with Iraq's trade agreement and Weapons of Mass Destruction????

They have nothing to do with CASA....it may be part of the government as far as legislation in general, but it is an independant arm....or are we going to say that the head of CAA all those years back was paid for by the Labor government of the time, when he retrenched nearly 4,000 employees?? (can't remember the exact figure)....no, nothing to do with it.

To say that the department blatantly falsifies the reports is irresponsible and of an obvious self-serving agenda. I happen to know quite a few people who work very hard towards the safety of the aviation in this country, and I take offence on their behalf. They rely on the ground work of experts to make a decision....and Dick, we are talking about real experts here....you should know how no 2 experts have the same opinion!

Mostlytossas, thanks for the explanation of how the system works. I can see the scenario in relation to Williamtown.

First of all, Bruce Byron announces to the aviation Taskforce (which I was a member of) that he would not be allowing Williamtown to operate over the 08/09 Christmas break without air traffic control. Presumably the military then tell the Department that they are not going to operate the service and won’t cooperate with Airservices in any way.

Then Airservices Australia tells the Department that they won’t be providing a service there as they are not allowed to man the military tower.

Rather than someone showing some leadership and resolving this quite childish issue, the next step takes place. It would be a question like this, “Would it be possible to re-do the safety case again to see if Williamtown can be operated over the Christmas period without any air traffic control at all?” (Wink wink).

The CASA Office of Airspace Regulation produces a new safety case, which (amazingly) shows that air traffic control is not necessary there at all. No doubt the bureaucrats involved believe they are doing the “right thing” just as the bureaucrats in the Wheat Board thought they were doing the right thing by Australian farmers.

If this is not the correct scenario, you would wonder why the Minister or Bruce Byron, or Mike Taylor (the head of the Department) did not issue a simple press release explaining how Dick Smith is wrong, that the safety case is not a fake and explaining how they were able to justify not having air traffic control at the busiest and riskiest time of the year.

Of course they remained silent as the Wheat Board bureaucrats remained silent.

The sad thing is that the airline passengers were never asked to be involved. I bet if they were allowed to decide whether they should pay 50 cents per ticket extra for full air traffic control, that they would have said yes.

Are we to wait for a horrendous accident before these problems are fixed?

It is interesting that the dishonesty with the Wheat Board was only exposed by the United Nations. I suppose we will have to wait for a Royal Commission after an accident before a similar situation is exposed within the aviation bureaucracy.

Willoz269, you say that it is irresponsible to claim that the “Department blatantly falsifies the reports.” It wasn’t actually the Department I was complaining about, it was the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation.

I too know of lots of capable people who worked towards the safety of aviation in this country and they are certainly being let down by the “ground work of experts.”

For example, I have written a number of times to Shane Carmody, the Deputy CEO of CASA, asking him why these new subjective safety cases have not been validated. Rather than answer me, he simply stonewalls and doesn’t mention anything about validation at all.

I’m not a scientist but I have been reliably told by scientific experts that if you are going to invent a new way of looking at risk, you have to make sure that your system works and has been validated. CASA refuses to do this and will not even explain why they believe validation is unnecessary.

Bruce Byron once said to me in relation to the people doing these new subjective safety cases, “Dick, these people have got religion.” I think by that he meant that they had a fundamentalist view of their own correctness and they could see no need for anyone to check whether their system was correct or not. I agree with Bruce Byron on this.

Rubbish Dick. Now you are just making stuff up to support your feeble case (whatever it is, it seems to be lost amongst your anti-establishment ramblings). Not that how RAAF Kingairs or C-17s has anything to do with the current situation at Williamtown. No where is anything written in defence guidlines or procedures about paying to man towers and not operating unless in controlled airspace.

Stop making up BS.

So why did the military pay to have the tower manned at Avalon when they did their King Air training there?

Dick, My post on how Dept's get the outcome they want was more general and not specific to aviation as I worked in the Public Works on Water Supplies, Gaols, major constructions etc but the scenario you describe wouldn't have been far off the mark.
That's why I said yesterday the minister should have stuck to his guns and backed his dept (RAAF). If he had said the Raaf controllers are standing down for 4weeks due to their need for R&R and unless AsA take over for that period then the airport is closed. Because I am not going to allow any undue risk to occur or have any blame aimed at the RAAF should things go horribly wrong blah,blah, and so on.
I reckon it would have taken about a day with the lobbying power the airlines like Qantas has for a temporary tower to be installed as, like you say is done at Bathurst.

Mostly, I believe you are 100% correct.

The problem is that it would be known that CASA would roll over easily to prevent any controversy. Watch "Yes Minister" to undersand why.

One day CASA will stick to an objective safety criteria- then this type of capture will go away!

My Bolding.

Are the resident military flying squadrons not observing the Period of Operational Standby? They would normally break for the same period as the ATCOs were looking to.

Have Newcastle Airport applied for and received a temporary exemption from the 6 RPT moves per hour agreement?

If locally-based military flying is significantly reduced or not existent, Newcastle Airport Ltd is only allowed to permit the agreed amount of RPT moves and GA operations are restricted as usual, then how can this statement be true?

Dick, notwithstanding your original assertions, when you say things like this, that given the above are not likely to be correct, it goes to your credibility. If this statement is erroneous, how can I and others in the industry be sure that the rest of your rhetoric is factual?

Okay, so what we've got so far is:

Newcastle's only RPT capable airfield is owned and manned by Defence Force Air Traffic Controllers. The ADF have provided a service to civilians that have allowed the daily movements of the airfield to reach 50+ RPT per weekday, plus whatever GA traffic can get clearance. This airfield is in fact a military fighter training school, not dual control, not partial lease, it is Australia's Miramar. At Christmas time the pilots go home on school holidays, as such the primary reason for controllers, ground crew, refuellers et al on the ADF paycheck no longer exists. They state that they will also be going home.

And suddenly a single GA pilot in the ear of the media launches a scare campaign stating that it's not safe for people to operate there who have no right to be there in the first place. It's like complaining about the lack of race marshalls and ambulances at Bathurst in the off race season to look after the hoons and tour buses.

It doesn't matter whether CASA say that it's safe to fly in there or not. It doesn't matter that RPT have suddenly found themselves in a situation where they've scheduled multiple flights per day and don't have anybody to talk to. It doesn't matter that an entire city suddenly finds that it's effectively cut off from the outside world.
It's not their airport!
The Royal Australian Air Force helps out and, instead of benefiting from it, they're suddenly penalised.

That's what I'm talking about, not some big government conspiracy that's supposedly been put in place by Sir Humphreys to actively endanger the lives of its citizens. True evil is not lurking in the heart of parliament house and it's ridiculously paranoid and childish to think otherwise. I can accept wilful negligence and ignorance, but Dick seems to be pushing active, murderous-hearted, moustache twirling evil and that's ridiculous.

The only thing that amazes me is that the Minister of Defence, when faced with the situation, caved in and recalled his staff instead of doing what I would have done and said "You know, you're right. It's not safe without controllers. We won't be a party to dangerous flight practices. For the entire period of the Christmas break Royal Australian Air Force base Williamtown is hereby an active restricted zone." One knee jerk reaction for another.

As for another airfield, if you don't want to build one, how about expanding and linking Maitland? Sure it still falls under military restricted airspace, but at least it's not in a down-to-ground section.

After post edit: Whoops. Okay obviously Willytown isn't owned by RAAF Controllers, unless the military has gotten way more socialist than I realised. :O

lol, so now the venting (healthy debate) part is off my chest.

Agreed with several points in the preceding discussion.

1) Defence/government shouldn't foot the bill for an alternate aerodrome. the NIMBY syndrome impacts on defence time and again but surely in this instance the 'we were here first' argument has got to be seen as the winning one.

2) It would be interesting to find out whether or not ADF ever did get in touch with CASA, ASA or the airlines to let them know that there was likely to be an issue with Willytown when it went into close-down.

Out of curiosity, does anybody know what happened this time last year?

Green, Because Dec & Jan are the peak thunderstorm time at Willy from the official BOM figures and it stands to reason that the Christmas hols are the peak time for itinerant VFR flights through the area.

I have a property on the coast and the Christmas period is by far the busiest for overflying VFR aircraft.

Read the safety case- it even mentions the problem of IFR Airline aircraft with "do it yourself" holding when a big CB was over the aerodrome.

ToA, last year the RAAF provided controllers in the tower to provide an A/G service with the assistance of a radar display. They advised Byron over a year ago that they would provide no service this year. That's what the whole issue is about.

Wait what?

So the entire attempt to endanger human lives at Newcastle, and wilfully ignore the concerned statements of a member of the public is because that member of the public is you Dick? They know that people's lives are in danger and they do nothing because you're the one telling them that?

Just so I can be sure, I want to ask this one simple question.

Do you genuinely believe that an entire government department, or even just it's spokespeople and internal decision makers, would consciously choose to risk the death of innocent people and all the pain, heartache and legal action that would follow just so they can say they pulled one over on you?

Perhaps the following analogy will put some perspective of what the problem is.
Lets say there is a 20 story building being constructed. The bottom 19 stories are all up to the outer glazing being completed so quite safe to work inside. The top floor is still open to the elements and then the scaffolders knock off for 4 weeks leave. No safety rails,kickboards,screens nothing. The project manager says "she'll be right carry on regardless" to all the other building trades. I'll tell you what would happen. Within the hour Safework SA (safety regulator in SA but each state has one) would be on site and close off all access to the 20th floor and order all work to cease untill such time safety rails etc are installed. Workers on the site would have to work on other floors or be on full pay in the smoko hut until work can be found for them. The builder would probably be fined. The unions would be in full agreement to what the safety regulator had done.
CASA is the aviation safety regulator yet did nothing when the controllers (scaffolders) left the site. Worse than that, they conspired with the builder (airlines/AsA) to keep the 20th floor (Willy) working.
The union (I assume the AFAP) sat idlely by without a whimper.
The reason they get away with it and no one gets prosecuted/fined is because CASA and AsA are both government instrumentalities and the crown cannot prosecute itself.

Willy needs a separation service over the stand-down period.
TRA has not worked. Penetrations today. Education has not worked.
Fingers and toes crossed.

Dick,
Thanks for the link. Had a read and yes the last page in the CASA report is a strange little graph and I don't know what process they used to determine it but I don't know if people have manipulated data to reach a pre-determined outcome. Maybe they did but I can't tell.

What was interesting was the comments from the CAGRS people (non RAAF) who evalutated the traffic over several weekends and found it to be less than traffic at other Cagrs locations around Oz. Also comments from RAAF ATC management stating, that with a loss of 5 staff from the 18 they had in Aug, that they couldn't provide the service without affecting other loactions, ie DAR AND TVL. This would also mean a flow on effect to the full service they could provide in the new year, ie less ATC in 2009. Also, whilst the airlines didn't like the proposal, they were willing to still operate out of Willy over x-mas.

Now don't get me wrong, I like what your trying to acheive and improve avaition safety but it feels like you are trying to bring down those at CASA and the current Willy serves your purpose.

Most of the problems mentioned with Willy, TIBA etc all have one common thing. A critical shortage of ATC within both AsA and Defence.

You could acheive so much more if you helped us out and highlighted this fact to the media and others. Target CASA with this issue if you want and ask them why they haven't had an issue with all the places operating RPT without ATC. Willy, BN & ML centre, YSSY, YMML, the list goes on.

Willy is like so many other places, that if they had the staff they would be there providing an ATC servcie, not some token bull**** thing. Sorry I don't like Cagrs, its a waste of an ATC. We dont mind working weekends etc, its our job but its needs people.

Plug the current gaps in ATC and then we can go on and improve other things within the system but we can't keep trying to get blood from a stone.

And C- Change you have been a little bit naughty. In post 98 you are an ex RAAFie and now with posts121&148 you still are.
That's ok I forgive you as you have made sense and been most helpful.
Have a good Christmas and your fellow controllers as best you can anyway.:)

Ozbusdriver, you state:

Oz, the problem is that there are no bridges. In the last year or so, those in CASA, Airservices and the Department who were involved in the decision making have allowed no discussion with me at all.

I would certainly like there to be a bridge, however if one side won’t allow one to be built, do you really suggest that the other side should remain silent and just accept what is dished out?

Even when I write nice letters to CASA or Airservices, the answers basically stonewall and don’t address any of the issues. I think the attitude is that if they do this for long enough, I will simply go away. Of course that won’t work. It just motivates me more to try to get the decision making out in the open using good rational and objective judgment, and based on historic experience from all around the world.

Dick, I am not talking about the CASA.

Oz, my friends at AOPA keep the bridges open and in return are treated like S##T.

Strange times at the moment. Martin Ferguson was very critical of Mr Byron however the new Minister is effusive with his praise of Mr Byron even though over $100m has been spent on the Regulatory Reform Programme with no measurable output.

Could it be that the Government wants no change?

Silly question!

Dick. You are wrong:

It is well, well in excess of $100 mill so far - and that is only what they admit to. I think the last figure I saw some time ago was over $150 mill so the current cost is probably around double your estimate. And you must admit, $200 million up in smoke would even make your eyes water! :{

Twenty years in the making - if they ever sell the film rights to Australia's Regulatory Reform the resulting epoch will be bigger than Ben Hurr!!! :D

I just love this confidence building gem from the last CASA Director in Hansard on 14 February 2005, almost four years ago now:

I guess the Government is so ashamed of Australia's regulatory reform performance that they funded the PNG Government to adopt the New Zealand Regulations!

We'll see the caliber of the new CASA Director when we see what he can achieve in expediting Regulatory Reform. :ok:

Sorry for the thread drift! :}

civi
 

MT,
I'm most definitely still an ex Raafie mate, I got out in 2005 and I'm 100% civilain these days but I still work for defence. Thread #89 and #99 will provide some answers.

C-Change :ok:

Must be convenient to be at a training base. Knock off and don't come back till Jan. Nothing like logging 8 aircraft moves when you clear an 8 ship training flight (after all that's all they do) to pitch into a circuit. How about moving the training Squadrons that don't ever work over Christmas to a base that no civvies need and move the RAAF aircraft that do the work over Christmas to Williamtown. Shame about the relocation cost.

I'm assuming that since you are implying that ATC knock off when the pilots don't fly that you believe YWLM ATC should man for all other ADF aircraft arrivals and departures? Always amusing "We must man for 1 x F/A-18 with POB 1" then "Sorry, we cannot man for 1 x <name type> POB 120". Given the cost of several assets that fly into YWLM is substantially more than the cost of 1 x F/A-18 can I assume you believe the value of 1 x F/A-18 pilot is more than 120 passengers? I'd really like to hear you take on that.

Care to comment on why you don't man for other ADF moves if your basis is serving the ADF? You only provide a service for the training aircraft based at Williamtown. If you want to claim you are there to serve the RAAF why don't you???

"Pass me a brew"
"8 ship at initial"
"o.k. clear initial and pitch, and clear to land"
phew! Another tough 8 aircraft moves!

Your statement that Defence "shouldn't foot the bill" is ridiculous. The "my my that's a different bucket of money" does nothing but (when implemented) increase the bureaucracy and increase the cost to the tax payer. How about this. Place ASA trained controllers in tower. Move the RAAF controllers to other bases - and provide the service through-out the year. You know you don't need a blue shirt to say "Clear to Land".

You are there to provide Air Traffic Services. You were not specially selected to provide Air Traffic to F/A-18 aircraft. What's next? Don't use an AP-3 for surveillance of approaching illegal immigrants because "that's a military aircraft designed for submarine hunting and they've knocked off for Christmas to enjoy school holidays" (like that would ever happen!). When you actually work in the operational Air Force (rather than as you put it the "training Air Force") you might enjoy finding a clue.

You are here to serve the Australian people. Telling civilian pilot's who want ATC at YWLM "Get bent, I'm only here to serve RAAF training" is neither constructive nor helpful.:=

Interesting: No NOTAM for KNKX (Miramar) advising of no Air Traffic over Christmas... and by the way, if you were trying to make some reference to Top Gun - you should have referred to NAS Fallon. Top Gun moved from Miramar in 1996 - it's now Marine Corp Air Station Miramar. :ugh: (do you think Williamtown has the same facilities as Fallon?)

:hmm: Keep up the good work ToA! Your nation needs you! Been signed off to Ground Freq. solo yet?! :hmm:

P.S. Do you think the rest of the ADF aviation community outside of YWLM believe you provide a service? I personally think that it's not just Dick Smith who thinks your "service" stinks.

ElPerro.......at last an informed opinion !!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????

What the :mad: was all that about.

from the lunatic fringe at least.:rolleyes:

ElPerro,
Go back and have a read of my posts #95, 98, 113. If you read them you might learn something about the base.

Then I suggest you go and visit the staff next year (all 13 of them) and actually have a look at what they do. You might be surprised to see how busy it actually is some days.

Once you've done that, come back on here and then you can express your opinion about how easy they have it ( I think you've been watching too much Top Gun ).

TO ADF AIRCRAFT AT AN RAAF BASE.

They are in Blue because they can be sent to war, unlike AsA controllers.

BTW all ADF acft are provided ATC if they arrive/depart during published hours but the FA18's are the priority at WLM. Thats no different to AMB, EDN, ESL, PEA, OAK, NWA, RIC, TDL.

TVL and DAR are joint user, thats the difference.



DICK,
You never replied to my post #147, I'd like to hear your thoughts on what I suggested.

Why not have some civilians at Willy, they do at Nowra (there were moves to put some at Richmond?)
There are alot of controllers who would be more than happy to leave ASA live around Nelsons Bay, Tea Gardens, Hawks Nest (heaven) and go on contract at Willy and provide a service outside of Willies core hours. This would allow flexibilty for the RAAF, we could even become reservists.
Where do I sign.

P.S. Unfortunately these days people make safety cases say whatever they want them to say. They are like staff surveys and impact statements, i.e. box ticking exercises.

C Change, re post 147.

I don't believe we will be able to do much about the shortage of ATC's until CASA does it's job properly. The Willy issue gave me a chance to point this out to the media and the Minister.

If CASA keeps manipulating safety cases we will end up with an accident.

Imagine if because of the pilot shortage CASA did one of these fake safety cases and claimed that all RPT up to 30 PAX could operate safely with a single crew member!

We probably would get away with it for a number of years but is the risk worth it?

That's what they did with the Willy safety case.

The reason you cannot understand the strange little graph on the last page of the CASA Oct 08 Willy safety case is because it is a fabrication. Note how there is no information as to where the data came from.

The Department is paranoid about any controversy- they will put every pressure on CASA and AsA to keep any disagreement out of the media. They do this by appeasing everyone they can who they think may kick up a stink.

For example, imagine for a second if CASA had stuck to it's guns and maintained it's requirement that Willy was not going to operate with RPT and without ATC?

The decision could have been leaked to the media and that would have shown a dispute between CASA, AsA and the RAAF. That would never do to our "yes minister" department. Better to cover up the problem by getting CASA to re write the safety study to show that ATC was really not necessary (wink wink).

And thats clearly what happened!

Dick

that is the most sensible post i have read of yours on this forum. You actually made sense and some valid points (extremely difficult for me tp say). Request you leave the conspiracy theories and anti-establishment rhetoric on the sidelines and stick to the facts like you last post.