Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
Do you know if it actually works? If it does why don’t other countries instruct their atcs to call nearby VFR aircraft?
.
The reason I would put forward as to why it is much more uncommon in your beloved US and of A is because they have ADSB-in, including re-transmitting of Mode C/S targets from the radar site, and the aircraft are most likely to see each other on their Foreflight app/GPS with ADSB capability and take avoiding action before its a safety risk: here we don't have that luxury yet (just as they have NEXRAD aswell, we have to rely on our BOM radar app). It's called TIS-B but I am sure you know all about it.
You do also realise that VFR flight following over in the states is a big thing as well (used much more than it is here, and when I did a checkout with a flight school over there was told that it is recommended among most DPE's that flight following is used)
I never said ATC have a duty, or responsiblity to provide a traffic service to VFR a/c in Class G. But if it means that a more accurate traffic information service can be provided to the IFR passing through the Class G (by knowing what the intentions of the VFR bug smasher is), I don't see the problem.
I am still at a loss to how having a little box with the frequency at the site of the transmitter (rather than FIA boundaries) would change your frequency changing requirements on your flight? You are still going to have to change frequency along your route no matter what (just like if I was flying from Oshkosh down past Chicago, I will have to go between Chicago Center's numerous frequencies, than Chicago TRACON's numerous frequencies etc etc, the frequencies on the NRST page change just as frequent as they do on the flight you mentioned from Terry Hills to Gundaroo).