Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
However every time a pilot has to look down at the chart or iPad to get the correct frequency and then look inside the cockpit again to change frequency could possibly mean less looking outside. Just possible .
Possibly the most flawed argument ever..
What's next? We don't have a nav log because we don't want to look down? We can't look at our approach plate because we are looking inside once again?
I was taught as a student pilot to note the frequencies down in advance while flight planning onto my navlog. I would put the frequency either next to the turning point where I would change the frequency (or if it was half way along a certain leg, put it in between the two points on the paper plan).
Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
Car. I must admit I don’t hear other VFR pilots popping up and making self announcements when an IFR aircraft could be close ,on these flights.
Could be primarily because the IFR aircraft don’t give position reports as they are all under good radar coverage
It is pathetic what some of you are trying to justify. All about resistance to change!
It's got nothing to do with the aircraft making a report! Not that position reports would help anyway, hows Bob in his 172 flying out of Bankstown going to know where the hell AKMIR or RAKSO is?
If the controller sees two aircraft which may come into close range of each other, they put out a safety alert to alert the two pilots - I still don't understand how you think this is a bad thing... and no if the two aircraft did hit, its not the controllers fault and they won't get sued as you alluded to before!
You obviously don't maintain a very good listening watch because its a daily occurrence on many of the regional low level sectors and on Sydney Center (Brooklyn Bridge is another prime spot when two aircraft meet at the same time... Yes, both pilots are still maintaining a lookout and abiding by the VFR 'see and avoid'... It's just the controller adding a helping hand, which once again, IS NOT A BAD THING (even though you won't stop going on about how it is....)
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely hate this idea of 126.7 below 5000' and the CTAF distance boundaries... I do however agree with monitoring area frequencies though (no matter what your height is) and having the boundaries on the map, as I have seen it directly improve air safety in numerous scenarios. If that means looking down at a map for 2 seconds to figure out what frequency you need to be on, so be it!
I also am slowly warming to the idea of lower Class E limits around the place as well, but I will not sit here and listen to your constant rhetoric about resistance to change when there is no advantage at removing the boundaries off maps.