Jonkster, I’m going to do my best and answer your questions from post #585.
A. the changes you want are:
1. Class G - FIS frequencies not marked as boundaries on charts but outlets shown (similar to AERIS currently?)
Yes, you are right, I do not want the frequency boundaries to be marked on charts as this is clearly giving a message that you can use radio arranged separation when that is no longer possible, as Class G is primarily a see and avoid airspace, you have to remain absolutely vigilant.
If a small number of people make announcements, that means pilots will start looking in that direction and could collide with someone who isn’t announcing. Of course it would be simply impossible for everyone to announce – other than in a circuit area where we have good, sensible procedures (which I support).
2. Class G - VFR - no radio required at any altitude (as opposed to current requirement above 5000')
No way! There would be no way I would be game to take away at the present time the current mandatory radio above 5,000 feet or in many CTAFs. It is a fundamental religion of many people, including Mr Bloggs, that above 5,000 feet you must have radio in E and G airspace.
All it does is probably reduce safety, because it may give pilots false confidence that they can use radio instead of being vigilant when flying in this airspace. As we know, quite often a pilot can be on the wrong frequency or with the volume turned down.
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?)
Not quite. I believe that if you are VFR enroute and flying in the airspace normally used for the approach and departure operations of an airport, you should monitor the CTAF of that airport. Surely that is just common sense.
I don’t put any dimensions on this. Surely any pilot can use common sense to work out where to do this.
At other places, I would recommend using 121.5, as very thorough testing for over 20 years in Australia and around the world has shown that is the frequency you are most likely to get an instant answer – from a high flying airline aircraft. I have even tested this over the Indian Ocean near Cocos Islands and got an immediate answer from a US Hercules.
4. Class E - no frequency boundaries marked on charts but outlets marked
Yes.
5. Class E - lowering to replace current G in those areas that radar can support it (ie most of the SE Oz 'J Curve')
Definitely not. I want to be able to leave airspace for enroute “free in G.” That is the Canadian system, where you can fly in most parts of the country, IFR (on a self-announce basis), without having to pay a toll to the service provider.
In most cases I would leave the Class E at 8,500 feet as it is now, but certainly bring some Class E down to 700 feet AGL at the busy airports which have airline traffic.
6. Class E - VFR - need radio but same requirements as VFR in G (ie no mandated monitoring frequency for VFR)
Yes.
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.
Yes, I agree with this, however my terminology would be that you can depart VFR on an IFR plan, without having to inform ATC that you are doing this. I believe in the US and Canadian system, where even if you have filed an IFR flight plan, until you have actually received an airways clearance, you can keep climbing in VMC in Class E. In fact, that’s what is expected.
Regarding the transponder requirements, I introduced the transponder requirements for Class E at the level it is now. I believe if we are going to drop Class E to low levels in the terminal area, we should have some type of a procedure to allow a non-transponder equipped aircraft (or one with a faulty transponder) to transit that airspace or land at that airport. It could be simple – having the transponder mandate not below 1,500 feet AGL, or a simple procedure where the plane can call ATC to transit. I think this requires further thought.
Of course, the US system is simpler – you don’t require a transponder at all!
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?
Yes, I agree with your points B1, 2 and 3.
Jonkster, I’m sure there are lots of things we haven’t discussed here. How can you possibly sort this out on an anonymous forum like PPRuNe?
I have been involved in airspace reform since July 1988, and in that time we have gradually moved towards a more international system, with one or two reversals. I am still confident we will eventually get to a more compliant system that will encourage everyone to fly more and be very safe.