Dick, seriously, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions and again I stress I am not trying to argue - I am trying to understand.
I think there is something here I am missing.
Ultimately any change should be evaluated on the questions of:
1. does it increase safety? (and by how much?)
2. how much does it cost? (and does the safety increase justify the cost?)
3. does it make things easier (by how much and at what impact to safety and cost)
Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
The only reason CASA has spent over This was the system we had before my group made the 1991 AMATs changes. In those days there was no such thing as a CTAF and the airport traffic operated on the area frequency . That’s why the charts had to show the frequency boundaries.
The system was designed so that “ radio arranged separation” could be used between all aircraft.
The system required an extra 700 staff to monitor all these non tower airports .
The CAA Board made the decision in in 1990 to more closely harmonise with the North American airspace system. This copied the CTAF concept and removed the requirement for VFR to monitor ATS frequencies.
I have no problems with existing ICAO alphabet airspace and removal of mandatory reporting for VFR etc.
I always understood the idea in the early 90s was to reduce excessive costs associated with the existing system that only provided marginal increases in safety and I get the concept that you can bankrupt yourself trying to remove all risks rather than very marginally increase risk for a huge reduction in cost (especially when the risk is actually quite low to start with).
Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
You say there is not a problem that needs a solution. The RAPACs or CASA clearly do not agree. That’s why the major dispute occurred. It had nothing to do with me. I just watched from the sidelines.
The dispute has clearly not been resolved as the RAPACs and just about everyone else other than a few selfish regional pilots do not accept unique 40 mile and 5000’ prescriptive CTAFs
The idea of a 40nm CTAF is something that seems a furphy as far as I can see.
1. I think it is totally unnecessary
2. despite that I also do not see how an expanded size is a necessary consequence of having frequency boundaries on charts
We have managed to operate with the frequency boundaries on charts and current sized CTAFs fine for years (in my opinion - willing to hear others who had problems though). Why is it now an issue?
Surely just say "when operating near CTAFs and the traffic threat is most likely from aircraft operating around that CTAF, use common sense and monitor that CTAF and give timely calls if you plan to enter that airspace"?
Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
1. While en route if in the airspace used for for the departure and approach of an aerodrome monitor and announce if necessary on that aerodromes CTAF.
that is not really any different from the current procedure most people use in practice and it makes sense. No problems from me.
Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
Otherwise monitor the nearest ATC ground outlet if you wish to listen to atc
I assume the idea is you would look at your current location and look for the nearest box with a frequency in it? If so, this is the bit I am not getting - is it much different from looking at the bounded area I am in and finding the box in that?
My impression is it achieves the same result (ie I find the appropriate frequency) but perhaps more quickly with the area's boundary marked because I direct my scan to that area.
Look, not a deal breaker either way for me but I just don't see why that particular issue gets so much prominence and is seen as a problem.
Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
Or monitor 121.5 if you want to get an emergency call out with maximum chance of quick action and don’t want a truck type radio going in your ear all the time.
I can see that up to a point but know from giving people simulated emergencies during their BFRs most will be operating at maximum brain power already just dealing with flying with little left over to deal with radio calls etc, so in a real situation I tend to think they will be highly likely to waste time dialing rather than flying, (or dial a wrong frequency or just blurt out on whatever frequency they have dialed in at the time) if it was a real scenario.
Again, my opinion, but a mayday on area, even if overtransmitted in a busy chatter environment tends to shut people up quick smart and is pretty likely to be heard by many and if ATC/FIS is the one over transmitting I am sure they will be immediately alerted by another aircraft who did hear the call if the urgency or distress call is not acknowledged.
I can see if you always had 121.5 dialled in on standby that would make sense though.
That said to me it seems to add a layer of complexity for many VFR PPLs but I can live with it - we would just train people to keep 121.5 dialed up and to use it in simulated emergencies.
Again not a deal breaker.
Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
2. At any time you can push the nearest button on your GPS and request a service from the nearest ATC ground outlet. Or look at the location of the nearest outlet on your chart.
If using a chart, wouldn't having a boundary perhaps make finding the nearest outlet easier? Again not a deal breaker if the boundary wasn't there but still not getting why having it is seen as a big problem.
Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
3. Same as above. You can give safety information to the nearest outlet. It has never been shown anywhere in the world that aireps to to other VFR aircraft are necessary for the safety of the system.
well... I have made operational decisions based on hearing one.
Agree though it is not common however IMO does add an extra swiss cheese hole filler.
Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
4 E is the same as G in relation to VFR radio requirements. See 1.
I look on the chart. Under your system I find the nearest box to me, on the current system I restrict where I look to the marked boundary and find the box in that region. That part fine either way for me.
Your system works though if the various outlets are re-transmitted - what if they aren't? Would that not mean I could be monitoring an adjacent area's IFR traffic rather than what is in my vicinity or am I getting something wrong?
Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
5. Call the closest ATC ground outlet. Either look at the outlet location on your map or use the nearest ATC outlet function on your GPS. That’s why it is there. The controller will provide you with a service worlkload permitting or advise a change to another frequency.
fair enough. That said if I call the wrong one I just waste time and bandwidth while we sort out the correct frequency but look, not a big deal.
Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
It’s how The rest of the world works,
To me it still seems very similar to the existing system we have except we draw an area around the outlet and they don't
What am I missing?
I could easily adapt to not having the boundaries but also cannot see how it would really confuse someone from overseas flying here either - surely they would look at the chart/display and say - "oh isn't that neat! the nearest outlet has a boundary around it!", and carry on. Again - am I missing something
Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
Most importantly. Keep a good lookout when in VMC. Even when under an ATC clearance keep a good lookout. Many mid airs take place close to the airport in controlled airspace. Be vigilant.
no problem with that at all. Agree 100%
Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
You could die if you remain obsessed with the Australian 1960s culture of looking down at frequencies on a chart and writing down call signs of other traffic rather rather than looking out.
TBH what I am seeing are pilots who spend their VFR time staring at the little purple line on their EFB. Same disease different symptom - relying on technology rather than pilotage.
Most un-necessary looking at charts (and EFB displays) tends to be done by people map crawling rather than looking for radio frequencies. Having a boundary would potentially make it quicker to find an outlet wouldn't it? (and so reduce time spent head down?)
Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
Look forward to your judgment.
still digesting this as I think I am not getting the issues.
Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
By the way. Have you ever rented a car in another country? Other than knowing what side of the road to drive on the rules have been standardised. What’s wrong with Australia doing that with Aviation. We will earn a fortune in export income if we make it simpler for other aviators to spend there money here!
I am all for enhancing our GA industry, particularly the training side.
I am struggling to see how much different we really are though (and if different, how much adjustment would pilots changing airspace in different countries need to make? - the changes in procedures you want seem relatively minor to me - we currently have some boundaries on the chart and have less class E).
I could see advantage if the changes save cost and have little negative safety impact (or positive effects).
In light of my original basis for assessing this:
1. How much would it improve safety (I am seeing little change either way TBH).
2. How much would it cost? (some cost - probably minor - would need to produce training material, briefings etc etc)
3. Does it make it easier? Would it make it more likely foreign students would find it beneficial if it matched their system? (to me adaption either way appears trivial - here you look for the box in the boundary - there you hunt for the nearest box to where you are, here you have more G and less E but basically similar procedures).
I am not seeing the problem. Certainly ditch the 20nm CTAF idea but that seems a side issue.
Again thank you for your detailed responses to my questions - sorry if I am missing something and happy to be corrected or have things better explained.