Willy airspace proposal • Call for comment.

[Garfly]

 

 

https://www.avsef.gov.au/sites/default/files/consultation/pdf/national_-_avsef_-_proposed_williamtown_airspace_design.pdf

[mkennard]

Still no good for RAAUS through the coastal lane.

[Garfly]

Yes, we can only hope that CTR transit for RAAus craft eventually comes through to allow for the coastal route (and/or overhead clearances ).

 And the proposal's apparent freeing up of the lower half of the VFR lane Dungog - Maitland (D589A within R583B) is of little use since in order to stay under 2000' you're pretty much stuck in the old lane anyway, due terrain. At least it gives you 400' more headroom than is the case now.

Edited October 19, 2021 by Garfly

[facthunter]

I doubt they will give you any improvement on that. Overfly abv FL 125 OK for RPT etc.  Nev

[turboplanner]

Where’s Willy?; where’s the respect?

You are being given the chance to submit your first hand experience and opinions. No point telling us such as in the past where people have commented to each other months after the comment period closed, but didn’t bother to submit a comment.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I would have hoped that the killing of 2 by failing to allow them to use UNUSED airspace should have put a bomb under them...  Alas, I don't think anything has changed.

[mkennard]

2 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I would have hoped that the killing of 2 by failing to allow them to use UNUSED airspace should have put a bomb under them...  Alas, I don't think anything has changed.

That was Coffs wasn't it? That would be nice as well to be able to transit their airspace somehow.

[facthunter]

Coffs has less demanding traffic to handle and isn't a military controlled location.. Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

My old grandfather, who fought in WW1 , would have been aghast at the phrase "their airspace" . It belongs to us citizens...   alas, this is a losing argument I know. But you did go  to the root of the problem, which is that airspace people do get territorial ideas and begin to act like they own the airspace.

Actually, I thought the incident was at Sydney, where the hapless pilots had to stay below 500 ft because they were not given an expected clearance. There was no conflicting traffic, and this was noted by the coroner.

 

[mkennard]

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2019/aair/ao-2019-052/

[walrus]

No point commenting. They don’t listen and don’t care. All you are doing is providing window dressing.

[facthunter]

If the opportunity is provided and nobody responds (apathy) you can't really complain about the Outcome. IF you are controlled by CASA then you don't make a fuss. AOPA is the only Independent Body who can advance a case. I think the Current Minister for Transport is Barnaby Joyce If you have a coal fired aeroplane you might get a leg in. Nev

[RossK]

19 hours ago, mkennard said:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2019/aair/ao-2019-052/

No weather check,

No flight planning,

not IFR rated,

not familiar with IFR instruments fitted

not using paper charts or EFB, ie not actually navigating

no current BFR - unlicenced

flys into IMC

 

And it's ATCs fault? 🙄

I'm not convinced.

 

[Garfly]

22 hours ago, mkennard said:

That was Coffs wasn't it? That would be nice as well to be able to transit their airspace somehow.

Speaking of getting past Coffs ... on the assumption that a clearance to track coastal abeam YCFS was un-gettable, (not to say unavailable) I've been researching some route options through the hilly country to the west.

Of course, it depends upon WX on the day but I was wondering which track might minimise the hostile terrain below.  Checking out Google Earth it did appear that the farmland valley running north-south just north-east of Bellingen might be as good as any (cutting across to Nana Glen [northbound] near Lowanna, following the power lines.)

But any comments or suggestions from those familiar with the area would be welcome.

 

A few options:  (click on each image for some more detail)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 21, 2021 by Garfly

[Bruce Tuncks]

I wonder how they knew all about the "no flight planning"  stuff when the flight planner guy was dead. I guess they looked for paperwork?

And yes flying into IMC is crazy. I hope I will have the guts to tell those guys on the radio to get stuffed and to detour all those imaginary planes around me.

 

[mkennard]

2 hours ago, Garfly said:

Speaking of getting past Coffs ... on the assumption that a clearance to track coastal abeam YCFS was un-gettable, (not to say unavailable) I've been researching some route options through the hilly country to the west.

Of course, it depends upon WX on the day but I was wondering which track might minimise the hostile terrain below.  Checking out Google Earth it did appear that the farmland valley running north-south just north-east of Bellingen might be as good as any (cutting across to Nana Glen [northbound] near Lowanna, following the power lines.)

But any comments or suggestions from those familiar with the area would be welcome.

 

A few options:  (click on each image for some more detail)

 

 

 

 

 

 

From memory I chose option 1 to keep maximum altitude during the flight. Option 2 is too close to trust your GPS and option 3 is too low and putting trust in the GPS again I think.

[walrus]

Why even fly the East Coast? It’s just a series of road blocks.  Jervis Bay, sydney, Newcastle, Coffs, Gold Coast, Brisbane, Sunshine Coast. Seven of them - and not one of them makes a provision for RAA pilots or a sensible fuel efficient corridor. How many Light Aircraft pilots and pax  have been killed because they couldn’t plan or get clearance through these toxic zones? 

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, walrus said:

Why even fly the East Coast? It’s just a series of road blocks.  Jervis Bay, sydney, Newcastle, Coffs, Gold Coast, Brisbane, Sunshine Coast. Seven of them - and not one of them makes a provision for RAA pilots or a sensible fuel efficient corridor. How many Light Aircraft pilots and pax  have been killed because they couldn’t plan or get clearance through these toxic zones? 

RA aircraft operate under an EXEMPTION from day to day aircraft rules.

It was never intended for cross-country flying, it was intended for low cost, affordable flying which suits the basic entry level aircraft.

Over and over again on this site for a decade or more, posters have driven this point home.

However some people have never got that message.

 

Airspace rules start with ICAO for good international understanding, and are there to protect RPT aircraft and IFR flying.

I've posted very detailed analysis of a particular location, and why you may think the space is "unused" but be totally unaware that ATC have just managed congestion at a busy airport by instructing a Qlink to go to your favourite area and do circuits there until called in, and that can be in both VFR and IMC. You might be showing up on ATC radar, but then again if you are creeping between your two favourite hills, then maybe you won't be seen and then its between you and something travelling at three times your speed that get's a last minute warning.

 

By all means people should look at how many people have been killed because they couldn't get clearance through these zones, but also realise that these are PICs who have a legal obligation not just to avoid them, but not to plan unsafe flights full stop. That will disqualify most of that group.

 

If you are going to be accurate you will also collect the data on how many people were killed because someone illegally flew into one of those zones.

 

Then you will look at the incursions listed in the ATSB reports and see how many near misses there were.

 

Then you could look at, say Coffs Harbour Airport being shifted inland to free up the VFR coastal route.

 

And so on.

 

If you're going to make a submission it needs to be credible.

[Student Pilot]

It's easy to get discouraged with CASA, they won't listen to experienced people. You only have to look at what they have done to businesses over the last 40 years. Doesn't matter who you are or what you say, they will not listen they know better. That's why people will not make submissions, waste of time. Admittedly CASA are just part of the problem, Federal gov, local councils, sacred military airspace have all contributed to the elimination of GA. It's just getting too hard, too expensive. 

[kgwilson]

There was a lot of discussion on the Mooney crash on 20/9/19. I left South Grafton early that morning at about 0800 direct for Quirindi & there to Parkes. Once on track it was 8/8 cloud with tops about 5-6000 only clearing well past Armidale. While there was poor planning and currency issues by the pilot ATC have to share part of the responsibility. Early morning, trainee ATC operator and NO CONFLICTING TRAFFIC but they were denied transit. It wasn't as if ATC had to actually do anything other than monitor the radar. Coverage would have been patchy at 4500 & too low anyway for the terrain so they just need to get him to climb to good coverage altitude of 6500 & that was it. 

[facthunter]

You are told to contact ATC in such situations and they are supposed to  contribute to getting you to a safer outcome. On many occasions they have done an excellent job. Nev

[KRviator]

19 hours ago, RossK said:

No weather check,

No flight planning,

not IFR rated,

not familiar with IFR instruments fitted

not using paper charts or EFB, ie not actually navigating

no current BFR - unlicenced

flys into IMC

 

And it's ATCs fault? 🙄

I'm not convinced.

 

@RossK, there was no evidence of many of those points, however lack of evidence of having these  is not evidence of not having them...

 

For example: familiarity with on-board equipment, were I to prang my RV, there's absolutely zero evidence that I've received any training with any of the equipment on board, nor would the ATSB say I met the General Competency requirements and was, therefore, illegal to fly. But I built my RV, installed everything, read the manuals and have flown it for several years, but there's no evidence I've been trained on it - nor could any instructor teach me themselves as the fitout in the RV, by the very nature of it being experimental, is unique. But I can prove I know how to use it (if I'm alive that is...dead, well...)

No flight planning: I use a self-developed Excel spreadsheet customised to my RV. This can be displayed electronically on the EFB, so again, no "evidence" of a navigation log, or fuel log. Not saying that is the case in the -DJU prang, but again, the ATSB would claim there was no evidence of my having a NavLog or Fuel Log.

The ATSB Report goes so far as to say he didn't have "appropriate navigation equipment" on board, however, -DJU was fitted with a GTN650, which is certified to TSO-C146 standards, allowing sole-means IFR navigation, with no backup equipment. IF they got that wrong, I wouldn't hold my breath about the rest being accurate. I'd love to have a GTN650 in the RV!

 

And yes, I do, 100% completely and uttterly lay the blame for this accident at the feet of the (trainee) ATCO. He denied a clearance through his sector "Just because". Not for traffic (there was none). Not for procedural compliance (there was no requirement). Not for workload (his OJT felt his assessment of being overwhelmed was misplaced).  He denied clearance "Just because", and the result of that was the ping-ponging of a pilot of a high-performance aircraft in marginal VMC between 4 frequencies all the while he's closing on CTA at 2.5 miles a minute with no Plan C 

 

But I've made those arguments in the incident thread, no need to rehash them all here.

@Garfly - for my $$, I'd pick option one out of the three you've offered, but as an alternative - and the one I would choose myself if I was flying the mid-north coast, coastal and if you have a decent glide ratio, might be to go east over water at A085/095. The CTA step only goes out to 12NM, and in the RV, it has a 12:1 glide ratio, so if you're above 6,000' in no wind, you can make it in to Coffs if you have an engine failure, IIRC, without the requirement to carry life jackets, because you're still within gliding distance of land. I wouldn't try it in a Drifter though...

[kgwilson]

20 hours ago, Garfly said:

Speaking of getting past Coffs ... on the assumption that a clearance to track coastal abeam YCFS was un-gettable, (not to say unavailable) I've been researching some route options through the hilly country to the west.

Of course, it depends upon WX on the day but I was wondering which track might minimise the hostile terrain below.  Checking out Google Earth it did appear that the farmland valley running north-south just north-east of Bellingen might be as good as any (cutting across to Nana Glen [northbound] near Lowanna, following the power lines.)

But any comments or suggestions from those familiar with the area would be welcome.

 

A few options:  (click on each image for some more detail)

 

 

 

 

 

 

A better option is Coastal under 1000. Illegal at this stage for RA but you will be granted this transit most of the time if you call them. Coffs doesn't have a lot of traffic.

[Old Koreelah]

1 hour ago, KRviator said:

@RossK, there was no evidence of many of those points, however lack of evidence of having these  is not evidence of not having them...

For example: familiarity with on-board equipment, were I to prang my RV, there's absolutely zero evidence that I've received any training with any of the equipment on board, nor would the ATSB say I met the General Competency requirements and was, therefore, illegal to fly. But I built my RV, installed everything, read the manuals and have flown it for several years, but there's no evidence I've been trained on

 

Excellent points, KR. Sadly, it seems controllers are being trained to blindly follow strict guidelines, rather than use their commonsense to save lives.

Your comments about your RV would apply to many homebuilts. The whole spirit of “experimental” aircraft is surely to allow latitude for innovation and improvement. 

If I were to prang my plane I fear the Feds would also report that I didn’t comply with any of their rules and standards, despite all my safety features and procedures. (But then, they don’t usually investigate anything with numbers on it)

[RossK]

@KRviator lets just say we both interpret that report differently.

Though, I've never said ATC dont share some of the blame (they do), he was only going to be in the class C for less than 3 minutes, and their instructions to transit the Class D should have given him vectors, not just told him to descend to not more than 1000ft.

But if he actually knew where he was, he wouldn't have descended through cloud to below ground level.