If you're not satisfied with findings of the 133-page CASA/RAAF joint study into the Williamtown airspace, then perhaps you should fight fire with fire. Commission an objective, independent study that avoids hyperbole and is based on the facts.

Most of the holding over the ocean is completely unnecessary if proper airspace was instigated.

Class D is utilised in major international airports in Europe. Why not try it at Willy?

What's wrong with empowering controllers to let them use their skills as allowed in other countries

I'm not an airspace expert; the CASA/RAAF study recommended a number of changes to the Williamtown airspace, but it forthrightly rejected Class D as a solution. Who's right; CASA/RAAF or Dick Smith? If you think you're right, then you need to do a lot more than jump up and down on the sidelines making noise. You need to show that they are wrong - hyperbole and insults won't make a scrap of difference!

Uncontrolled VFR Corridor?
 

Has the possibility of a VFR corridor directly over the top of YWLM been explored?

Perhaps similar to that over KLAX at 3500' in one direction and 4500' in the other direction where no ATC clearance is required?

If it ran in a NE-SW direction it would run perpendicular to the approach paths to RWYs 12/30 and be clear of final approach and circuit traffic at that height.

Thoughts?

PG

It's impossible to get them to change anything. I attempted to for over 20 years using rational logic.

Same group think resulted in $1.4 b lost on the Super Seasprite. That money could have been used to pay RAAF personnel decent wages.

The CASA document is clearly a con. Naval Air Station Lemoore is the home of the US Navy's fighter attack capability for the entire west coast and has over 175 FA18's stationed there and is , wait for it, class D

Gatwick is one of the busiest airports in Europe with over 40 million passengers per annum and is D.

That whole paper was all about keeping what was put in place when I was responsible for the AMATS changes. Zero leadership.

Was the paper prepared under Mr Cromarty's leadership? Where is he now?

Notice how no one disputes my claim that with D the ATC can still separate IFR and VFR as both must comply with ATC instructions. Once again D empowers controllers to use there own professional skill and judgement to move more traffic with less delay if they wish to.

Bloggs,
How about an example!! Aeronautically speaking.

Naturally, we can rely absolutely on the finding, absolutely no question of conflict of interest, per-conception bias, proponent bias, confirmation bias or any of the other issues that arise when a bureaucracy (whether uniformed or not) investigates itself.
For goodness sake, people, have a look at a standard MATZ/NATO/US military zone, then really justify the extent of military airspace in Australia, including the size of Williamtown or Richmond. There is absolutely nothing that happens at these places that justified the profligate airspace restrictions, and the consequent inefficiency in airspace utilisation.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Speaking of profligate use of airspace, the preliminary design for Sydney West is to cater for Class E circling approaches as the main criteria --- resulting is a zone slightly larger than Heathrow.
Any of you flying Class E aircraft ?? Done a circling approach in one recently?? Ever?? How many Class E civil aircraft are there?? I haven't noticed and F-111 on the civil register.

For the love of god man, stop it with the Seasprite argument. It isn't relevant, the people that ran the program weren't uniforms, it was a DMO/Government thing. It's a completely false accusation and argument and it just shows your lack of knowledge in how the ADF actually works.

Seatbelts, gun laws...

Nice try.

Of course not, but what else do we have? If there is a genuine argument for change, then the proponents of that argument need to do the ground work and prove their case. Dick Smith's rants on PPRuNe don't 'prove' anything and are only likely to harden the attitudes of those on the other side of the argument.

I could possibly agree with you about Richmond, but I would have a much harder time with Williamtown. I wonder how many of you naysayers have actually operated a military aircraft in those areas or have any clue about the type and frequency of operations that are conducted there. I also wonder if you have ever looked at the amount of airspace that is designated as either 'Restricted' or 'Military Operations Area' (MOA) around places such as NAS Lemoore and Nellis AFB in the USA. Although MOAs do not prohibit VFR aircraft, I think you'd be a bloody fool to go blundering through an active MOA where multiple fighters could be conducting air combat manoeuvring at high speed and extremely high rates of climb & descent.

There is plenty of whingeing by the US AOPA about such areas, so it seems that GA drivers in the US aren't happy either. Perhaps some of you lot need to get a grip and realise that national security concerns sometimes take precedence over your desire to fly wherever you want, whenever you feel like it.

You fellas should get out more, I'm flying GA at the moment in the States. What a breath of fresh air, people who 'get' aviation instead of flat earth experts. Most of you have never been here let alone actually looked at how it works.

BuzzBox,
As it so happens, I do have extensive experience of the US airspace system, including MOAs etc., in everything from light singles VFR through to somewhat larger aircraft, and a few in between, Porter has got it right, I rather suspect you are the one with limited experience, at least from the civil side.

It is so very sad that the blinkered thinking of those who have only flown in Australia, and believe that is the only ( or the normal/average) way, simply cannot comprehend the US approach, and the joy, the fun of flying in US ( and Canada, to give them their due) compared to Australia.

And do not forget, the US air safety outcomes are far superior to Australia, does this suggest they might just be doing something right ---- certainly more right than Australia, where freedom, in all of its manifestations, is increasingly circumscribed.

Tootle pip!!

LeadSled,

Your assertions regarding my experience are very, very wrong. At least I've had the benefit of seeing things from both sides of the fence, having worked in the military and civilian worlds for many years, in various countries. I'd like to think I have some understanding of both sides of the argument. I wonder if you can say the same?

With the benefit of your 'extensive experience', what should be done with the airspace around Williamtown that will satisfy all users?

Buzzbox,

I cant speak for Lead Slead but here is my go at how the airspace around Williamtown could work out. This is based largely on the recommendations in the CASA/RAAF report

Google maps link:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1w5...ZI&usp=sharing

Key Features:

• Stepped rings of Class C have been adopted around Williamtown. Inner ring is 8nm and surface. Next is 12nm and 1000 feet, Outer ring is 20nm and has a class c base of 2000feet. Recommendations 1,13 and 16.
• The Low flying area has been converted to a large danger following a risk assessment. Recommendation 9.
• A coastal VFR route which would allow an aircraft to fly at 1000 feet up the coast with a clearance through the Class C airspace. Recommendation 23 Alternatively an aircraft could go ~3nm off shore at 1000 feet to stay outside the class C.
• The large restricted areas for military flying are retained but are divided in logical was so that they can be released effectively when not in use.

What do you think?

http://i63.tinypic.com/2u8xnro.jpg

How would this reduce holding on the coast with departures from RWY 12 or arrivals on RWY 30. Wouldn't three miles off shore require life jackets in a single?

No_one,

I think you'd also have to allow for the Salt Ash Weapons Range (R596), from SFC - FL120. The current CTR extends out to 12nm and encompasses most of R596. The rest might work and seems to comply with the recommendations in the CASA/RAAF joint study. Mind you, it won't keep those pushing for Class D happy!

Fujii,

Thats right. This would not allow for a coastal transit without a clearance. It would however allow for a very easy inland transit.

This is one area where the whole rule situation needs to be taken into account. In the USA there is no requirement under part 91 for lifejackets unless you are 50 miles off shore so a short diversion out around airspace can be done without them. See for example the lakeshore to the east of Chicago O'hare or south of JFK? Is the risk of an engine failure at the exact instant resulting in a controlled ditching so high that it offsets convenience of GA being able to move through major centres unhindered?

Buzzbox,

Sorry R596 was on another layer. I have added it back in now.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1w5...ZI&usp=sharing

Provided they survived the ditching after the engine failure, could mum, dad, and the kiddies swim 3 miles?:}

For a start most light aircraft starting at cruise speed would make the shore from 3 miles and 1000 feet with a failed engine.

I realise that the proposal isnt perfect but it is much better than the status quo. Not being perfect isnt a reason not to adopt the change. The airspace shown on that map and the outlined in the CASA report is a massive improvement for GA, RPT and the RAAF. It would allow a VFR aircraft to travel via East Maitland and Clarence town at 2000 feet, with terrain in that area at about 600 feet.

On the specific point of going over water in a single engine aircraft, there are also many points in a flight where an engine failure at that exact moment would result in a poor outcome. The incident at Bankstown yesterday shows the that clearly. But we accept that risk when we fly.