Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
The problem is this. The airspace was half wound back by putting the 1950s frequency boundaries back on the charts.
No. Some idiot rammed through changes without bothering to check if the implementation was in accordance with a certain organisation's legal requirements. Such changes that were implemented properly stayed. Those that weren't were wound back. The idiot lost interest, we have a half-implemented system a decade later.
Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
A mandate with a big fine was then introduced that required VFR to monitor and announce where necessary to IFR aircraft.
But now IFR aircraft do not give position reports when under surveillance so the system clearly does not work as planned.
Over NW @ 8000 you are in coverage of SSR and primary radar. Workload permitting you will get a radar advisory on VFR traffic, maybe even on a non-transponder aircraft. Over Upper Combucter West @ 8000 there is no surveillance coverage, but your position report may spark interest from the cloud of VFR over the airport. Risks are mitigated, procedures are simple.
Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
What a joke.
Despite the above, I agree. I like having the green lines on the chart, I find it reassuring to reliably dial up a freq I can belt out a mayday on to an interested audience if required. The NAS frequency 'cloudy biscuits' were just hopeless, even the minimal information they provided at the time being fought against by a certain idiot. Having the information available lets motivated pilots use it. I don't believe enforcement of such a system adds any real safety benefit. A power-mad regulator attempting enforcement of such a system is just farcical, and yet another example of CASA's mania to enforce their concept of safety even if it hurts aviation as a whole.
Conclusion: Support your campaign to remove the concept of compliance from what frequency VFR listen to (if any) in enroute airspace. Leave the green lines and numbers on the charts.