Why no full position reports in G and E ?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's great. Airservices can be sued by the family of a VFR pilot if involved in a mid air and the ATC did not call the pilot.
Re IFR making position reports for the benefit of VFR listening out, just wait for the shut-down of most of the ground-based navaids in a couple of months....the new names of position fixes where the NDBs and VORs were won't give the VFRs much idea at all about where anyone else is
Thread Starter
Pontius.
I am looking at the reference guide for the NAS wind back.
It states;
" VFR flights- - in class E - should monitor the appropriate class E frequency and announce if in potential conflict- "
Anyone who has ever flown in E in Europe , Canada or the USA would laugh at that one.
It was written with staggering ignorance and resistance to change. Attempting to turn ICAO class E into some type of Marconi 1930s airspace.
Hempy The example I gave was where there was no workload at all on Sydney radar 124.55. During the week it happens quite often.. How would a controller be able to convince a court under those circumstances.
The problem is the frequency boundaries. No other country has such a system.. If you want flight following simply call on the nearest VHF outlet shown on the chart and you will soon be told the correct frequency if that wasn't it! That's why we took the frequency boundaries off the charts- to copy a proven safe system.
We now have an unproven suspect system where CASA can't even convince the RAPACs that their latest changes are rational and not based on anything other than an attempt to wind back to pre 1990 before my team introduced CTAFs for the first time in Australia.
Before then all of these strips would be on the area frequency and that's what they are desperately trying to head back to.
I am looking at the reference guide for the NAS wind back.
It states;
" VFR flights- - in class E - should monitor the appropriate class E frequency and announce if in potential conflict- "
Anyone who has ever flown in E in Europe , Canada or the USA would laugh at that one.
It was written with staggering ignorance and resistance to change. Attempting to turn ICAO class E into some type of Marconi 1930s airspace.
Hempy The example I gave was where there was no workload at all on Sydney radar 124.55. During the week it happens quite often.. How would a controller be able to convince a court under those circumstances.
The problem is the frequency boundaries. No other country has such a system.. If you want flight following simply call on the nearest VHF outlet shown on the chart and you will soon be told the correct frequency if that wasn't it! That's why we took the frequency boundaries off the charts- to copy a proven safe system.
We now have an unproven suspect system where CASA can't even convince the RAPACs that their latest changes are rational and not based on anything other than an attempt to wind back to pre 1990 before my team introduced CTAFs for the first time in Australia.
Before then all of these strips would be on the area frequency and that's what they are desperately trying to head back to.
46. DESCENT FROM CONTROLLED AIRSPACE
46.1 Before descending from controlled into Class G airspace and before separation with any aircraft operating near the base of controlled airspace can be compromised, the pilot in command of an IFR flight must report position, level, intentions and estimate for next position/destination to the ATS unit providing services in Class G airspace. If the report is made using HF radio, a broadcast must be made on the appropriate area VHF frequency.
46.1 Before descending from controlled into Class G airspace and before separation with any aircraft operating near the base of controlled airspace can be compromised, the pilot in command of an IFR flight must report position, level, intentions and estimate for next position/destination to the ATS unit providing services in Class G airspace. If the report is made using HF radio, a broadcast must be made on the appropriate area VHF frequency.
I only say something if there's a chance our respective ETAs will put us anywhere near each other.
I often hear Centre report me to IFRs as unidentified traffic. I will usually pipe up and nominate myself as the clueless VFR in that position at an indicated altitude (read cluelessly from a certified calibrated altimeter) by reference to a QNH (set by reference to nearby ATIS or AWIS, or TAFs or ARFOR in accordance with my usual clueless ways), and Centre will occasionally go through an identification process to confirm the extent of my cluelessness. Having done that, it seems all those involved are more confident that I'm actually at e.g. 9,500' heading southeast over Cowra and therefore unlikely to collide with the IFR heading west towards Cowra at 8,000'.
Thread Starter
Lead balloon. Try doing that anywhere else in the world and you would have licence action taken.
By the way the requirement to announce if VFR is in ENR 1.1. 18.3.2. It's a classic wind back ignorance driven Reg . No way in ICAO compliant countries can VFR announce in this way on ATC class E frequencies. Professional ATCs would never allow that. Only in Australia are ATCs treated this way.
By the way the requirement to announce if VFR is in ENR 1.1. 18.3.2. It's a classic wind back ignorance driven Reg . No way in ICAO compliant countries can VFR announce in this way on ATC class E frequencies. Professional ATCs would never allow that. Only in Australia are ATCs treated this way.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 9th Apr 2016 at 10:26.
But they're not all "ATC" frequencies...
In any event, get AIP changed so that the rule is STFU, and I'll STFU.
In any event, get AIP changed so that the rule is STFU, and I'll STFU.
Thread Starter
No. I don't want the AIP changed re not having to give full position reports when under survailance.
I want us to go ahead with the coalition NAS policy that was so strongly supported by the current Chairman of Airservices.
Or if 1950s type chart frequency boundaries are to remain put on adequate staff to keep self announce traffic off ATC separation frequencies. It's just commonsense.
I want us to go ahead with the coalition NAS policy that was so strongly supported by the current Chairman of Airservices.
Or if 1950s type chart frequency boundaries are to remain put on adequate staff to keep self announce traffic off ATC separation frequencies. It's just commonsense.
No. I don't want the AIP changed.
The charts are part of AIP.
You'll hopefully learn all this again when you're required to re-sit your air law and flight rules and procedures exams.
Dick you've lost your mind. Again.
If I'm in Class G at FL170 approaching an IFR waypoint, identified by ADSB (which is installed because it makes sense, over and above the fact that it is mandated) why should I have to make a position report to alert the VFR aircraft 16,000ft below me what I'm doing? And even if I do, how are they to know where every waypoint is when they are minding their own business, doing a nice, relaxing scenic flight, by reference to ground/water? Are you suggesting every Tiger moth be G1000 equipped to allow the pilot to work out where the IFR waypoints are? That's a huge and unfair cost to the industry....
You can't expect to have credibility regarding serious aviation issues when you don't have an understanding of basic aviation procedures.
Good job blaming someone else again, by the way. You're a pro at that.
If I'm in Class G at FL170 approaching an IFR waypoint, identified by ADSB (which is installed because it makes sense, over and above the fact that it is mandated) why should I have to make a position report to alert the VFR aircraft 16,000ft below me what I'm doing? And even if I do, how are they to know where every waypoint is when they are minding their own business, doing a nice, relaxing scenic flight, by reference to ground/water? Are you suggesting every Tiger moth be G1000 equipped to allow the pilot to work out where the IFR waypoints are? That's a huge and unfair cost to the industry....
You can't expect to have credibility regarding serious aviation issues when you don't have an understanding of basic aviation procedures.
Good job blaming someone else again, by the way. You're a pro at that.
Thread Starter
Swift. I don't want you to make a full position report.
I have just pointed out the the half wound back NAS had the ATC frequency boundaries put back on the charts so that VFR aircraft could monitor and announce if they were relevant traffic for IFR.
I then pointed out if IFR aircraft do not give full position reports the half wound back system will not work as the VFR aircraft won't know the position of the IFR.
I say go back to the proven NAS without chart frequency boundaries. The frequency boundaries have completely stopped the airspace system from being harmonised internationally and led CASA into mandating that traffic at non marked airports give announcements on ATC frequencies. This is crazy.
I have just pointed out the the half wound back NAS had the ATC frequency boundaries put back on the charts so that VFR aircraft could monitor and announce if they were relevant traffic for IFR.
I then pointed out if IFR aircraft do not give full position reports the half wound back system will not work as the VFR aircraft won't know the position of the IFR.
I say go back to the proven NAS without chart frequency boundaries. The frequency boundaries have completely stopped the airspace system from being harmonised internationally and led CASA into mandating that traffic at non marked airports give announcements on ATC frequencies. This is crazy.
Thread Starter
Lead. That "Descent from Controlled Airspace" position reporting requirement in post 43 does not ever seem to be complied with by professional pilots dropping into un controlled airspace on the way to Bankstown from WATLE
Would you know why this is not complied with?
Would you know why this is not complied with?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
In E&G I do none…when identified, except at TOD.
When not identified I report at waypoints or as requested by ATC, plus TOD.
What is it you are on about Dick? If I am at an IFR level X,000' then my TOD report is what VFR's on the X,500 levels need to know.
Mind you that never helped me with a near mid air while climbing out of YSGE one day. VFR must not have been listening or aware I could have been a threat. And yeah see and avoid would not have worked. BST worked that day…just.
When not identified I report at waypoints or as requested by ATC, plus TOD.
What is it you are on about Dick? If I am at an IFR level X,000' then my TOD report is what VFR's on the X,500 levels need to know.
Mind you that never helped me with a near mid air while climbing out of YSGE one day. VFR must not have been listening or aware I could have been a threat. And yeah see and avoid would not have worked. BST worked that day…just.
Thread Starter
Now I see it. IFR Pilots are required to give full position reports even if in full radar coverage in some circumstances ( such as top of descent) but not in others.
It's a stuff up. No wonder CASA have rejected every RAPAC on the proper procedures in G airspace.
It's a stuff up. No wonder CASA have rejected every RAPAC on the proper procedures in G airspace.
Now I see it. IFR Pilots are required to give full position reports even if in full radar coverage in some circumstances ( such as top of descent) but not in others.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
I have just pointed out the the half wound back NAS had the ATC frequency boundaries put back on the charts so that VFR aircraft could monitor and announce if they were relevant traffic for IFR.
I then pointed out if IFR aircraft do not give full position reports the half wound back system will not work as the VFR aircraft won't know the position of the IFR.
I then pointed out if IFR aircraft do not give full position reports the half wound back system will not work as the VFR aircraft won't know the position of the IFR.
). The reason for monitoring the Area freq is because IFR will call on it prior to entry into G (dunno why they don't broadcast when leaving C at WATLE... it looks to me from way over here they should, but then again, there'd be a good SIS there, would there not?), and if IFR are cruising in G, they will call prior to changing level/descending. IFR departure from G? Yes, we again make a call on the Area prior to takeoff, and then again on departure. VFR can then pick up my calls and decide if they will conflict with me. If VFR are close to/"in the vicinity of" the airport, they'll hear me on the CTAF when I give my "recommended" calls.So, what frequency will the IFR be transmitting on? The charted frequency. This conspiracy theory about frequencies on charts forcing VFR to make full position reports or pull out an IFR chart to see where GAFFA is, or whatever you're going round and round in circles about is just plain nonsense.
Thread Starter
When I monitored over 1200 calls on my flight to the Kimberly and back in the caravan I had no idea in nearly all cases if they were from aircraft that were a potential collision risk so I could answer and organise pre AMATS " radio arrange separation".
The only way the half woundback system with mandatory monitoring by VFR of " area frequencies " can work is if the IFR gave full position reports in E and G. That's what they did before we introduced the AMATS changes.
Just one descent call when leaving controlled airspace solves about 10% of the alleged problem.
As I said before- go ahead and harmonise with the best airspace systems in the world - where ATC frequency boundary monitoring requirements don't exist and VFR are prohibited from making non directed announcements on ATC frequencies - or return fully to the old system and put back on 700 FSOs.
It was all starting to work really well when Airservices, in an act of shear bastardry , without the safety regulators (CASA) approval and with zero pilot education , posted out 30,000 frequency boundary charts.
All done in a desperate attempt to resist change. As pointed out by Billy Hughes- very Australian.
All we need is some leadership. Have you noticed CASA has no stated view on where we are going with Airspace?
The only way the half woundback system with mandatory monitoring by VFR of " area frequencies " can work is if the IFR gave full position reports in E and G. That's what they did before we introduced the AMATS changes.
Just one descent call when leaving controlled airspace solves about 10% of the alleged problem.
As I said before- go ahead and harmonise with the best airspace systems in the world - where ATC frequency boundary monitoring requirements don't exist and VFR are prohibited from making non directed announcements on ATC frequencies - or return fully to the old system and put back on 700 FSOs.
It was all starting to work really well when Airservices, in an act of shear bastardry , without the safety regulators (CASA) approval and with zero pilot education , posted out 30,000 frequency boundary charts.
All done in a desperate attempt to resist change. As pointed out by Billy Hughes- very Australian.
All we need is some leadership. Have you noticed CASA has no stated view on where we are going with Airspace?
Last edited by Dick Smith; 10th Apr 2016 at 00:56.
Thread Starter
Bloggs. When IFR are cruising in G under survailance they just advise when they are planning to leave an altitude and request traffic. As they don't give a position report the VFR has no idea if the IFR is about to descend through the same airspace.
ICAO class G airspace is a see and avoid airspace when VMC exists and it works very satisfactorily in low traffic densities . If safety dictates that traffic needs to be given on VFR that's ICAO class D.
Put it in where required.
ICAO class G airspace is a see and avoid airspace when VMC exists and it works very satisfactorily in low traffic densities . If safety dictates that traffic needs to be given on VFR that's ICAO class D.
Put it in where required.
Thread Starter
So what part of what I have said is " complete nonsense" ?
And yes. Monitoring the CTAF if in the approach or departure area of an airport is stock standard Australian NAS policy.
Prior to the 1991 AMATS changes all VFR above 5000' in G gave mandatory full position reports as IFR and VFR flew at the same levels. Both IFR and VFR could not even communicate to a radar controller even when in radar airspace. That's why I made the changes.
And yes. Monitoring the CTAF if in the approach or departure area of an airport is stock standard Australian NAS policy.
Prior to the 1991 AMATS changes all VFR above 5000' in G gave mandatory full position reports as IFR and VFR flew at the same levels. Both IFR and VFR could not even communicate to a radar controller even when in radar airspace. That's why I made the changes.
I live & work in the US now, and find the airspace system here sooo much easier than Oz - with one exception: I *like* have frequency boundaries with freqs. printed within the area. Not to make position reports, but so that on the rare occasion I'm VFR and want flight following (or want an IFR pickup), I know what freq. covers the area. It is not efficient to try one freq. on spec., only to be told the correct one is really 123.45 in that area.
Mind you, when I flew & worked in the UK from '99-04, it was like stepping back to Oz airspace in the '80s (with some even more regressive procedures attached). In fact, that was how I mentally modelled the system to understand how it worked.
Mind you, when I flew & worked in the UK from '99-04, it was like stepping back to Oz airspace in the '80s (with some even more regressive procedures attached). In fact, that was how I mentally modelled the system to understand how it worked.
I'm a VFR guy....
Re 'into un controlled airspace on the way to Bankstown from WATLE'
Where's WATLE??
Does it have a postcode ?
I can't find it anywhere....
Isn't that just one of the problems..??
Cheers
Re 'into un controlled airspace on the way to Bankstown from WATLE'
Where's WATLE??
Does it have a postcode ?
I can't find it anywhere....
Isn't that just one of the problems..??
Cheers