Originally Posted by
Traffic_Is_Er_Was
And therein lies the rub. We have Australian G. But that's ok, because we can take some overseas things and add the things we do better, like providing a DTI to IFRs in G where we can. That has to be safer than not doing it, surely.The cost of that extra safety is that we need everyone to be on a known frequency, rather than some random one they've decided to listen to, because we know that alerted see and avoid works much better than just see and avoid. Sure, it makes it a bit noisier, but that's a small price to pay. In fact, it doesn't cost anything. How good is that!
Yet, amazingly, the provision of potentially safety-critical weather information is on a ‘workload permitting’ basis. But I digress...
I like the current system. I don’t give a tinker’s cuss whether the ‘default’ frequency for use in the vicinity of an uncontrolled airfield that isn’t marked on charts is the FIA or 126.7. (The real risk in the vicinity of those places will continue to be no radio aircraft.)
I just want complicators to STOP F*CKING WITH THINGS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF RISK.
