Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
Jonkster. No. It’s not a fair summary. My prime aim is to get an airspace system which is proven and with minimum differences to airspace used in leading aviation countries.
Dick, is this a better summary?
A. the changes you want are:
1. Class G - FIS frequencies not marked as boundaries on charts but outlets shown (similar to AERIS currently?)
2. Class G - VFR - no radio required at any altitude (as opposed to current requirement above 5000')
3. Class G - VFR - if radio is carried, no required frequency to monitor (as opposed to current AIP that says "the area VHF") - (or monitor unicom? or 121.5?)
4. Class E - no frequency boundaries marked on charts but outlets marked
5. Class E - lowering to replace current G in those areas that radar can support it (ie most of the SE Oz 'J Curve')
6. Class E - VFR - need radio but same requirements as VFR in G (ie no mandated monitoring frequency for VFR)
7. Class E - IFR - similar to existing system except you can depart VFR on IFR plan and enter E without clearance and then pick up the IFR clearance.
Is this basically correct?
Also - are there any changes to aircraft transponder/equipment requirements?
B. The reasons you want these changes are:
1. It will be easier to use
2. It will make our procedures similar to other countries (particularly the US)
3. It will encourage more training in Oz of foreign students
Is that correct?
In all of the above, is there anything I have not mentioned that is important or is incorrect?
Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
Why don’t you give me a ring.
not exactly sure how I do that...