Chrism Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Hi Folks, I was wondering what opinions are out there with regards to the changes to Richmond and Willy CTAs as indicated on the upcoming Sydney VTC and ERSA (you can check it online). Basically, Rich CTA has been reduced in size to 11NM radius, and the Eastern boundary has been moved west away from the southbound VFR lane. There is a new VFR lane at 1500' to transit through to the W and NW. At Willy there is a new overhead VFR lane added to the costal one. Didn't know they were in the planning, so looks like a step in the right direction to me. I assume though that RA PC holders will still need a PPL+ to access them, right? All the more to bring on the long talked about Controlled Endorsement! Thoughts? Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I think if there was a simpler path to RAA PCs getting a CTA transit endorsement, that would fly way sooner than a full CTA endorsement. BTW if it is a VFR lane, then it is not CTA, so RAA folks should be able to use it. Maybe new VFR lanes through CTAs are the answer to most of the issues regarding getting through the coastal CTAs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 There was a big write up in the Saturday edition Newcastle Herald a fortnight ago. The RAAF chief honcho their made it very clear that he hates any idea of civilian aircraft of any type on HIS base and will fight any move to expand it to an international airport. He came across as very arrogant and if i was in power his whole shebang would be packed up and moved to Cobar. His attitude is severely restricting the growth of commerce in the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Normally a VFR lane is a lane through a CTA that does not require clearance. What is different about these new lanes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pylon500 Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 OK, call me lazy, but could someone put up a link to where you can study these changes please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I just looked at the new chart for Willy/Newcastle and it has the following notation on it: Aircraft may transit through R578E via D589A and through R583activated) via D589B without notification or clearance from williamtown ATC. It describes D589A as being 2 NM wide and max 1600 ASL (it also gives location description); and D589B 2 NM max 2000 Just looking at it suggests a good GPS with charts would be invaluable. kaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I should have added that the coastal route remains subject to a clearance. kaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfGnome Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Bum! Iggy's link makes it clear that clearance will still be required on the new lanes, so the western railway route is still the only path north past Williamtown for RA traffic. Hrmph! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Ah the rough as guts goat track, i miss the low level blasts down Stockton beach in the Cheyenne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazda Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 All military airspace is Class C. If a VFR lane is marked through Class C, it requires a clearance just like any other transit of C. There are lots of Class C VFR lanes around, such as through Coolangatta airspace, Williamtown coastal, etc. The only time you won't need a clearance is if the lane is clearly marked as other than Class C or D (like G). The inland Williamtown route is in C. We have way too much military airspace in Australia in comparison to the rest of the world, it is good to see a step in the right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Seems in the Hunter Valley they spend more time out of military airspace than in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfGnome Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 All military airspace is Class C. If a VFR lane is marked through Class C, it requires a clearance just like any other transit of C. There are lots of Class C VFR lanes around, such as through Coolangatta airspace, Williamtown coastal, etc. The only time you won't need a clearance is if the lane is clearly marked as other than Class C or D (like G). The inland Williamtown route is in C.We have way too much military airspace in Australia in comparison to the rest of the world, it is good to see a step in the right direction. Hi Maz. I'm happy to be corrected, but isn't the western lane classified as a danger area (D589) up to 1000ft as opposed to the restricted area that surrounds it (R578), meaning that it's not actually part of the military airspace? It's shown very differently to the 'normal' transit lanes like the eastern one on the VTC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Yes it is SFG and clearance is not required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrism Posted November 17, 2011 Author Share Posted November 17, 2011 I should have added that the coastal route remains subject to a clearance.kaz I went up the coast on the weekend and can also add that despite whatever licence a pilot may have, Willy will only give clearance if plane is transponder equipped and used as directed by ATC. Ours wasn't and so we had to use the inland lane via Gloucester. It was my first time, and I loved it! No bumps, beautiful scenery and no ttaffic. Someone who went with us said the height increase to 1600' and 2000' (from 1000 and 1500) felt that it made a considerable difference to not feeling so 'hemmed in' by the valley. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now