Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
I wonder if those of you posting on this site who want to keep our incredibly complex frequency boundaries on the chart actually fly in the system very often. Can I suggest you use your Ozrunways, Avplan, or even just a VFR chart, and put in a typical route I fly.
That is – Terrey Hills (YTRY), Hornsby (HSY), overhead The Oaks (THK), overhead Goulburn (YGLB), to Gundaroo (YGDO). Let’s do the trip VFR, let’s say at a minimum of 1,500 feet AGL enroute and remaining OCTA.
Let’s look at the complexity of the flight.
Initially on departure I would be monitoring SY CEN 125.8 (Woronora). Half way down the lane of entry I change to SY CEN 124.55 (Kings Tableland). Then through the busy training area where no one gives position reports. Then 45 miles DME Sydney, change to ML CEN 129.8 (Mt McAlister). About 10 minutes later, change to another Mt McAlister ML CEN frequency 121.2, but that is only for about 5 minutes, then change to MEL CEN 124.1 (Mt Ginini) coming over Goulburn. About ten miles later, there is another change to CB APP 124.5 (Mt Majura).
That is a total of six changes – not including the aerodrome frequencies.
Now I have been doing this, as mentioned, for over 20 years. And have never had to announce because of other nearby traffic reports .
Once you get away from Sydney Centre you hear all this traffic – Mostly high flying airline aircraft being re transmitted. I have no idea where they are, because they don’t give position reports.
On an equivalent flight in the USA you would just leave your second radio on 121.5 – an ideal frequency to give a MAYDAY or if ATC wanted to contact you, they would get a high flying airline to call you at your location on the guard frequency.
I have just described a typical flight here, that takes about 50 minutes in the Agusta A109. There are many other flights that are far more complex than this one.
Why would you make it so ridiculously complex when other aircraft are not giving position reports and a radio is not even required? Or could it be that most posters here that want to keep the extra complexity hardly ever fly – and when they do, it is good fun making it very complicated?
Or is it mostly resistance to change?
Note: There is a deliberate error in this post, let's see if you can find it! Hint. It could be to do with a frequency change!
I think it's more likely to be bureaucrat ass covering than anything else - if they devise a system, no matter how complex or unusable and require alerted see and avoid as the primary means of separation, in the event of a mid-air, they can state they did everything possible to prevent it, so can't be blamed. Sadly, way too many pilots have accepted the absolute rubbish we have been told about the effectiveness of alerted see and avoid and the need for so many frequencies due to congestion caused by the excessive number of requested calls.
You don't even need to really go anywhere to find an area with lots of appropriate frequencies to monitor.
A glider on a training flight out of Pipers Field (3 miles west of Bathurst) immediately should be monitoring the CTAF for Pipers Field (122.7), Bathurst (127.35) and Orange (119.0). Then also, 126.7 for the new huge CTAFs for the numerous farm strips in the area, 135.25 below 8,500', 118.5 above 8500' before even thinking about the other glider safety frequencies of 122.5 or 122.9 (122.7 is a glider safety frequency as well).
That's 8 frequencies to monitor whilst on a training flight, never going more than 5 miles from Pipers Field - I don't want to even consider the required changes as they are just about constant.