Jaba, the restriction did not come from OK. Try a four letter acronym starting with "C".

No, want to try and answer it?:rolleyes:

I have been told by an Oakey officer why they are vital to separate civilian IFR traffic, he was stumped when I asked why they don't need separating after 4 pm on Friday until Monday morning.:E

They are so paranoid about gliders infringing during contests that they patrol the railway line! (Boundary)
Why so scared of a few UFOs in their space when they are training for war zones?:eek:

I have flown through MOAs in the US without any issues, no clearance required.:ok:

Well your "officer friend" needs to head out there more often and look around more.

The Tower goes de-active on Friday afternoon and generally there will not be a single military helicopter movement there until Monday morning. If there is the off chance that there is a public demo or the like on a weekend then they take off and land while the area is a CTAF.

Nobody there patrols the railway line... especially on weekends when there is only around 20 people on the the base working. Turkey Hill, the radar site gets patrolled by road by security but that's about it.

Standard clearance out of Oakey is depart and climb to 2500 or 3500.

Guys you all need to calm down a bit... When the tower is active, they dont let people in... when its outside tower hours the skies are full of civil aircraft.

D.F.
I just had it explained. Seems the Army are not the ones who are behind it. Hopefully a solution soon.

Hypoxia training!

Red dirt, your second and third paragraph shows you did not understand my post. Your last just makes me ask again, why?:hmm:

Maybe I can add some insight.

The new approaches at TWB are not designed or owned by AsA. As they are 'new' designs they must be completely MOS173 compliant. The rules MOS173 basically state that procedures have to be either a)completely within or b)completely outside controlled/restricted airspace....clearly on RWY11 this is not possible without a significant offset (read operationally useless) The only way the procedure was allowed by CASA was with that restriction. (My opinion is who ever wrote the MOS, had no idea what they were doing....it's just not practical)

The previous versions were published pre introduction of MOS173. Rest assured AsA had also been informed that if our procedure stays it would also require that restriction.

The restriction can only be lifted by an exemption and that is going to require a complex safety case. The safety mitigator would normally be that the procedure conflicts are within OK airspace and can be monitored/controlled by them. In this instance OK have stated they are not prepared to do this any longer.

I will defend OK here. They have been very accommodating for a long time. They got told they would lose their airspace to accommodate Wellcamp. With the significant increase in traffic that Wellcamp will bring they were well within their rights to request that mil and civ ops be segregated. With 3 airports only 8nm from each othe,r and pointed at each othe,r someone was going to lose out. It was always going to be Toowoomba. John Wagner can say what he likes now, but the original concept assumed TWB would be closed.

The result is probably one of the most complex pieces of airspace in that region anyway...it was already complex enough.

I wouldn't go blaming Defence too much for the outcome. The outcome has more to do with a progressive business man doing battle with a set of outdated rules and a regulator that doesn't understand their intent nor can give guidance on better solutions.

alphacentauri,

Concur.

A.C.

Thanks, and that is most of what was explained to me this evening by a local legend :ok:

Seems ADF have been very accommodating especially for local and RFDS after some blunders occurred.

I also note some solutions are in the near term, at ones very kind expense.

I hope it gets sorted before the winter low ceilings arrive.

C'mon.

This is the bestest, harmonisedest, plain Englishest regulatory package ever built. :D

Creamie, sometimes you just crack me up.:E you cynical old ba..ard you!

"My opinion is who ever wrote the MOS, had no idea what they were doing...."

Of course they didn't !!! Have a brows through the part 61 MOS, amateurish drivel written by some ex Aeroclub Walla, its almost a gross insult to any professional pilot.

Our Pollies and the general public imagine there is a very high level of competence within CAsA, well after all they are the "Regulator".

I agree there are some very experienced, very competent people in CAsA, as Kharon is wont to say, White Hats.

But by and large the majority of front line and management people are ex RAAF failures or industry rejects, and therein lies the rub, and the minister needs to wake up.

He's being manipulated by very experienced "Sir Humphries".

This is not a game where the winner takes all.

The very survival of an industry that employs people, generates income that adds to the national GDP is at stake.

The alternative is a complete collapse and far more costly subsidization of essential services and the political flack from a whole heap of people who can no longer enjoy their passion.

Toowoomba hopes to attract a new wave of high-flying international students to the Darling Downs with the establishment of a new aviation training centre at Wellcamp.
A partnership between the Airline Academy of Australia, the University of Southern Queensland and the newly built Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport to build the Wellcamp Aviation Education Precinct will be announced on Friday.

Aviation training centre to open at Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport

Don't suppose there's any chance of the Wellcamp people building Badgeries Creek?

It would probably take them oh, about a couple of years to complete?.

Save the taxpayer billions, and provide some real competition for Mascot.

Instead of handing McBank another billion a year monopoly that all gets spirited to the Bahamas, tax free.

they've thought of that already

Toowoomba airport builders eye Badgerys Creek

Creamie,
Re. the vast areas of R airspace outside Australia's territorial limits, certainly Australia can make "rules" that govern Australian aircraft, provided they are not inconsistent with "local" rules.

Whether Australia can limit Australian aircraft operations in a class of airspace that has no legal validity, and where ICAO rules (not Australian) apply, is an interesting consideration.

But that is not the point. R airspace outside Australia's territorial limits has no legal validity, and is contrary to treaties, to which Australia is a signatory. Such airspace, in conformity with treaty obligations, should be promulgated as W, Warning.

A-Gs know this, DoD know this, Infrastructure knows this, many years ago, high level agreement was reached to conform with ICAO on this matter, but the "decision" got lost in the bureaucracy. Australia continues to thumb it nose at these treaties.

Tootle pip!!

So when are you going to jump into a VH-registered aircraft and tootle around without a clearance in an active Romeo, 13nms on the seaward side of the territorial sea baseline?

Ultimately, that's the only way to test your theory. :ok:

I keep telling you: Although Australia cannot regulate foreign aircraft in international airspace, Australia can regulate Australian aircraft anywhere in the universe, and that includes more than 12nms on the seaward side of the territorial sea baseline. But I could be wrong...

Creamie,
Yes, you could be, but nobody is going to the High Court to find out.

For my part, I have an open mind (but it is not open at both ends) as to the enforceability of airspace "restrictions" that have no legal validity, regardless of the state of registration of the aircraft.

You may recall, almost 20 years ago, now, an N-registered Navaho was deliberately flown just outside the Australian territorial limits off Williamtown, when various R were notamed as active, despite much huffing and puffing, no action was ever taken, because there was no cause of action.

Tootle pip!!

Australia can't take action against an N-registered for things done outside Australian territory.

Australia can take action against a VH-registered aircraft for things done anywhere.

You know this.

That's why you won't put a VH-registered aircraft where your mouth is. :=

Precisely, Creamy; nothing to add.

LeadSled,


I'd be guessing that the N-registered Navaho, to which you refer, perhaps was owned and operated by a person whose initials are B.M.? Is that correct?


(If so, I've had a couple of very enjoyable passenger flights in it. That was prior to the AOPA Moree AGM.)


You are a very well admired, liked and respected GA and retired airline B744 Captain.


So why do you (and Dick Smith) continue to take on people, such as Creampuff, who clearly have substantially more knowledge of Australian aviation law than you guys sure have?


Is it some misguided ego thingy or what?