More RAAF intransigence YBWW/YBOK
 

Many will be aware of the new Brisbane West Wellcamp airport just to the west of Toowoomba. It may or may not be a good thing (or even commercially successful in the end) but it resulted in the Oakey restricted area to the south east of Oakey being removed so that YBWW could operate in class G. The Army didn't use that area much as it is full of people with properties running horses and these and low flying helicopters don't mix.

The RAAF (who control the airspace for the Army), appear to have done a dummy spit and made the remaining Restricted areas RA2 so people can't plan through them although you may get a pop up clearance.

Worse, there has been a long standing arrangement where local GA training and private traffic used Oakey when it wasn't active to do circuit training, touch and goes etc. Been there, done that lots of times in the past myself. Even for controlled airspace practice when active when I did my PPL 20 years ago.

It removes some noise and circuit traffic from Toowoomba and is safer for early solo students (YTWB is surrounded by buildings now with very, very few options off the airport which itself is rather small). It was also a good weather alternative for YTWB as it is lower and further from the range. YTWB suffers from fog and low cloud at certain times of the year.

No more it seems. Civil traffic is now prohibited from using Oakey without specific approval. The local aero club is upset too.

One must ask WHY?

Sure looks like a massive dummy spit to me.

The GA people around Toowooma aren't all that enamoured with YBWW and the way it was approved and it wasn't their doing that it was built and that the RAAF lost some little used Restricted airspace but are now suffering because YBWW was built and the attitude of the RAAF. YBWW isn't a viable alternative for GA as they don't really want light aircraft there. Landing fees are $9 per tonne. Minimum charge $200.

Note that the contract for AIR9000 Phase 7 has been let for the HATS and the current plan is that this helicopter training will be done at Nowra, replacing the helo conversion and advanced training currently being done at Oakey, so there is no planned increase in Oakey traffic.

Maybe it is just a little push-back on the approval process, or perceived lack thereof, for YBWW! :ok:

Dr :8

Don't see any issue with a military base restricting their patch for military aircraft

Just because something isn't used that often doesn't mean it won't be used in the future.

red dirt, are you any kind of pilot? Nobody is talking of preventing the Army using Oakey (RAAF runs the airspace) when they need it. It has in the past been used by civilians when Army aren't using it, mostly on weekends for circuits and touch and goes or land stop taxi back and take off again.

FTDK, isn't that what I said?
If so they are demonstrating a lack of maturity and and aren't acting like good aviation corporate citizens.
In the past Army pilots posted in to Oakey to temporary ground jobs or even active Army aviators have joined the local aero club. Some have been office holders in it and we all got along fine.
If the RAAF/Army are pushing back because of YBWW they are hurting the wrong people and generating the opposite of goodwill. Most of the GA people I know in Toowoomba hope that YBWW turns into a giant expensive dragstrip. They agree that the approval was done without adequate consultation or planning or consideration of its effects on existing airspace and aerodrome users including the numerous private strips in the area.

Now my off the wall theory is that YBWW won't be commercially viable and there will be a cry of " isn't it a pity that this wonderful asset will go to waste" the Fed Gov will buy it, move the Amberley base there, make Amberley Brisbane's second civil airport, close YTWB and move the GA action there to Oakey (plenty of room there and out of town). The Army can then use YBWW for their remaining helos (ARH Tiger and MRH90 - when they are serviceable, not as often as they would like, both being pieces of Eurocrap)

Mate, YAMB isn't going ANYWHERE.

Way too much $$$ been spent there in the last decade to justify moving.

I think you misinterpreted what I'm saying. Oakey are entitled to do whatever they want with their airspace at anytime of the day or night so if they want to restrict it then that's their choice. I am a local twin engine aircraft owner too by the way.

There are plenty of aircraft that still use oakey on weekends for approaches and the like. I also note that a silver R22 does hot laps of the airfield at about 10ft on weekends too.

I don't think its the military who here! :E

Mate, since when did wasting taxpayers' money ever stop a government.

I did say it was my "off the wall" theory.

FTDK, ?????

I begin to see why Australian aviation is oppressed by the bureaucracy. As soon as somebody points out a high handed bureaucratic restriction which has no good purpose, the sheep start bleating for the shepherd.

red dirt, the taxpayers paid for Oakey. We own it. The Army gets to use it because our politicians let them. Last I heard the military in this country is subject to civilian control which is as it should be.
You may note that Amberley airspace only goes active when the RAAF is using it.
I have no objection to Oakey having restricted airspace if they need it although you may like to look up the airspace on the sectional covering Fort Rucker, Alabama, the US Army aviation headquarters and tell us why the US Army can manage a vast fleet of training helicopters with much less restricted airspace than at Oakey.
My objection is to an arbitrary change to a long standing arrangement which was beneficial to local aviators and had a safety benefit to them in the event of bad weather at YTWB. I've used it myself and that day two other light aircraft were there for the same reason.
If the RAAF/Army want to do a dummy spit because they got orders from above to relinquish some little used restricted airspace it doesn't speak well of them and they are inconveniencing people who had nothing to do with this decision. No good reason has been given for the change.

Eyrie,

in the beginning, Australian civilian aviation grew from the military and was administered by the department of defence, unlike the USA, where their military aviation grew from the civilian side.

Once upon a time all the airspace in Australia was owned by the RAAF, who very reluctantly released tiny bits and pieces of their airspace to accommodate a growing civilian industry.

The department of defence have never got over the attitude that they permit civil aviation to operate in their airspace under sufferance.

After WW11 the influx of ex RAAF personnel into the now civilian regulator ensured that authoritarian attitude prevailed, which is why our industry has to endure the regulatory Cr@p served up to us today, and in the opinion of a very senior CAsA person " If I had my way the only aviation occurring in Australia would be the RAAF and RPT".

Yes, you must bear in mind that Australians are subjects of the Crown and therefore exist to be governed and taxed. Government is the end, not the means.

The automatic response of most Australians to most problems is to call for the government to do something about it.

That's why I'm always surprised that Australians are surprised about drowning in regulation.

I'm not saying you are wrong..... Well maybe a bit... But I suggest you hop in a car or aircraft and come and look at the Oakey airspace on weekends because there are plenty of aircraft in the area.

The only change appears to be that people ate now flying around the CTR during Tower hours

And is approval being granted, or are we just assuming it's not going to be?

Eyrie,

To piggy back on AOTW's comments; ring Oakey ATC and ask. You may be pleasantly surprised.
Given the proximity of YBWW to TW, OK and AMB I reckon it's going to be an a**-pain for everyone when it comes to sequencing aircraft (and I'll assume they're going to be primarily heavies) into and out of YBWW.
As to your 'off the wall theory', I wouldn't lose sleep over it. The cost of establishing the required infrastructure to support any meaningful numbers of ADF aircraft is enormous. Given the budgetary restraints being imposed these days I really can't see it happening any time soon. The ADF just has to make do with the bases it already has.
Aint that the truth!! I think 'the gummint should fix it' is a line in our national anthem!:ugh:

Folks,
The last post from "username here" and his ilk is typical of the attitude that makes it so difficult to get efficient airspace usage around Australia's major population centres.

Richmond, Nowra and Williamtown military restricted airspace alone is greater than the total of PR military airspace in the USA.

Have a look at the standard size of a US military or NATO zone, and ask yourselves why the Australian military needs such huge zones. I wonder how the Yanks, the Canadians, the RAF or any of the European air forces manage, but they do. And they do it safely, with little or no disruption or delay to civil traffic ---- of any kind, not just airlines.

The real answer is we don't need these huge area, but the bloody minded intransigent attitude of the RAAF has prevented any proper integration of civilian and military ATC for as long as I have been flying. I have sat in more various airspace committee or planning meetings over the years than I wish to remember, the RAAF representatives are always pleasant, but we never make any progress.

The airspace volume around Amberley and Oakey is just as ridiculously large as around Sydney.

We continue to publish purported restricted military training areas outside Australia's continental limit, which have absolutely no legal standing, but it is the same arrogance as displayed by "username here" that is the basis of why we continue to do so.

It is about time Australia grew up, and stopped behaving like a whole bunch of little waring tribes, all defending their narrow and parochial interests, and to hell with everybody else.

Tootle pip!!

LeadSled wrote thus:


"It's about time Australia grew up, and stopped behaving like a whole bunch of little waring tribes, all defending their narrow and parochial interests, and to hell with everybody else."


I sure agree with LeadSled.


But back in the days, long past when I was an AOPA member, I eventually realised that this aviation 'Nirvana' was never going to happen. I attended the Temora BBQ 'Do' and later the AOPA AGM's at Moree, Narromine and Murray Bridge.


But what I did discover was that there were several 'larger than life' individuals in the GA world. And that they have massive egos.


I do believe that the reason that we are all are treated with indifference by government and CASA, is that they know we are not united in purpose. Very sad really.

Usernamehere
You don't seem to understand. The Military don't own anything. The taxpayers own all their land and all their toys.

By sitting on airspace when not using it is nothing more than a sulky child being a dog in the manger.

Yep, that's why a lot of it gets deactivated when not in use - who'd have thought!

All well and good if they do that. The original poster gave the impression that things at Oakey have changed for the worse.

Classic stuff Lead
You have a major dummy spit...and then tell everyone to stop fighting.
I did need a laugh today.:ok:

Any excuse for ADF bashing.:rolleyes:

Classic example today, heading North from Sydney, stuck at low level because the RAAF had blocked all the airspace from Willy to Dubbo.
Fuel burn was twice what it should have been so the end result my company made no money for the day, and the Hunter valley received a whole lot more greenhouse gasses than it should have.

The taxes my company pays, and the taxes I pay are used to fund these testosterone fuelled people to play their games in the middle of the main North South civilian air corridor.

There are civilian deaths that have occurred because of this, and there will be more in the future until Australia shrugs off its third world mentality.

I always thought that our military were subservient to the peoples parliament, if that is not true then we live in a military dictatorship, much like North Korea.

Today.... Tower went de-active at about 1700 and an R44 was flyin over the airfield about 10 minutes later broadcasting on the CTAF about 10 minutes later without a care in the world.

I'm going to suggest that the line about civil aircraft not being allowed blah blah blah relates to during active tower hours and not a blanket no

Smart arse comments like this only encourage people to vote in such a way that you'll lose your precious toys.

If the current mob think so little of you that they dock your pay think what the other mob might do.

"Bitter you can't play"?

Don't think so mate, I always thought I was born too late.

I got my rocks off flying a spitfire that my Dad owned and flew.

His contempories mixed it up in combat.

They didn't sit above the flak dropping million Dollar bombs to destroy $250 hiluxes.

I have no issue with the RAAF, they have their job to do, but they are funded by civilians, therefore they should recognize and accept that if civilians are economically compromised by their activities there is a danger that their activities eventually will be compromised.

Australian airspace management is unique to Australia, separation of military and civilian traffic is unique to Australia. Is there nothing to be learnt from the way the rest of the world does things??

Yes in the same way my kids toys are bought by me but played with by them.
If they do the wrong thing once too often they lose them. ie bike left in the driveway where I want to drive.

Confiscate Defence capability because you don't get the airspace access you want.

Well, that's the stupidest thing I'll read this week.

No need to hide them. Just cut the funding and see how much flying they do then.

A suitable time in the naughty corner would be until they realize they are NOT gods-just spoiled brats who need to learn to share airspace with those who pay for their own toys.

Are you sure it's not the taxes the defence types pay that pays for defence? You're an idiot.

The don

Any how many Jet drivers have you actually met?

Junior asks
Quite a few actually. I fail to understand what these meetings have to do with the question posed so siccinctly by Thorn Bird

I'm embarrassed by the poor display here by "apparent" members of the ADF.
Pretty silly comment, mate, paints a pretty poor picture of your attitude.
Oh, come on.
For the civvies partaking or reading here, please don't tar us all with the same brush.
Still, this:
is similarly inaccurate and immature.
Seriously guys, some of you need to do some growing up.
I've seen both sides of the fence and I've witnessed mil airspace active when it didn't need to be and I think improvements can be made - can't a balanced discussion be had?

Spot on Joseph:ok:

Thorn Bird,

As a suggestion you could try taking up your grievance with / via your RAPAC
Member.
These issues do get raised from time to time, and 'sometimes' a compromise can be arranged......but....alas, not always..!

Cheers:ok:

It's fair enough to complain, but keep it realistic. These people (probably a few oestrogen fuelled ones too) are generally working very hard to get to and maintain professional standards that all taxpayers, civil and military, should expect of our air force front liners, not playing games. They need a lot of airspace, and unless the taxpayer wants to stump up multi billions to move the infrastructure somewhere else, there will be some inconvenience for some people sometimes.

Nobody wants to keep airspace active for longer than it needs to be, and it changes over time anyway (witness the Pearce 50 mile circle 30 years ago that's now a much smaller funny shaped thing because they've bent over backwards to accommodate civil traffic, or the East Sale airspace that closes when not in use and has transit lanes so people can get through it easily).

Who says how much they "need", other than "them"?

Who is it that has decided that Australia's single-digit operations need more airspace than the triple-digit operations in other countries?

I can understand the argument that Australia has so few delicate and expensive flying ADF assets that it can't afford to risk them coming near anyone else in the sky, but jeeez, don't insult us with "safety" arguments. :=

It's not an insult, mate, it's just a function of the speed, vertical manoeuvring and all that other knuck stuff they do which needs clear airspace.

Come up with a cost effective alternative to moving the whole setup, fine.

But AOTW, the whole point is the EU and US do the SAME maneuvering in tighter airspace. How do they manage?

Maybe the answer is to send our fast jet blokes overseas for their training so they can learn to operate in tight spaces. It's win win really. They'd end up better pilots and the rest of us wouldn't be stuffed around with endless restricted areas.

You get better pilots from training in airspace where they can realistically simulate operational realities.

It's a way a small Air Force can train to a high standard.