Old 13th Mar 2020, 03:58
  #464 (permalink)  
Capn Bloggs
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,020
Uncle8,

To continue the theme of Squawk7700 and OCTAAUS, I would urge you to re-consider your use of the radio in E around Avalon. Practically speaking, the only thing that is going to save you from a midair is your transponder. It is highly unlikely that you will visually pick up a jet that is climbing or descending, and it is unlikely that the jet crew will pick you up visually in the terminal area. Unalerted See and Avoid just doesn’t work. It is, therefore, critical that you check that your transponder is working by contacting ATC and preferably, asking for a SIS. With a SIS, ATC, you and the other aircraft all know about you and can keep you “segregated” in E, or at the least, keep out of your way.

Originally Posted by Sunfish
So when it’s Class C, VFR Aircraft will be excluded when there is a jet within a hundred miles and RAA aircraft permanently excluded? Because Bloggs thinks all light aircraft pilots are dangerous amateurs despite being licensed?

That will kill a few light aircraft pilots every winter.
Sunfish, I’ll take your accusation that my preference for Class C will kill people with a grain of salt. It has been obvious for some time that your ideological zealotry is clouding your attitude. I have, on several occasions, written here, on occasion to you directly, that I will go out of my way to accommodate VFR where I fly and have, on numerous occasions, done just that. Your inability to recall or comprehend such comments is a bitter disappointment. Your continued slander does your cause no good at all, and will eventually turn people, who could support you, away.


Originally Posted by Led Ballon
It would be interesting to calculate:

(1) the volume of the chunks of E between the 8nm ARP and 12nm DME arcs to the north and south of Avalon, and

(2) the cost of the resources diverted to designation/AIP revisions/airspace reviews etc arising from that airspace.

It may well be the highest ratio of bureaucratic bullshit-to-cubic kilometre of airspace on the planet.
Enough. Instead of your continual sniping, I suggest that you have a think about why the “shambolic” situation at Avalon exists. I put it to you that it exists because the airspace fundamentalists forced the current arrangement on CASA. When it became obvious that the system wasn’t working, CASA and ASA started adding requirements to keep the airspace reasonably safe.

Finally, CASA has said enough is enough and it’s going to recommend ASA replace the E. On that point, have you written to the minister arguing that CASA should have the power to mandate airspace changes instead of just “recommending”? I didn’t think so.

Originally Posted by Led Balon
George Glass: You realise that it’s just a roll of the dice in e.g. Class C, too? It’s just that the dice in Class C (should) have many more sides and therefore the probabilities of rolling ‘snake eyes’ are very remote. (It might even be that there’s a level of complacency in Class C as a consequence of assumptions that everyone’s known, everyone is complying with an airways clearance, nobody makes mistakes and equipment never malfunctions.)
Give it a rest, Leddie.

Originally Posted by Mr Approach
Capn - the issue you seem to have problem with is whether VFR works in terms of separation, if it does not then stay away from the Bankstown training area.
In Class E if a clearance cannot be given immediately, in the US, the controller is able to give the VFR pilot traffic advisories to assist with his/her visual separation with the conflicting traffic. (Don't forget the controller needs 3 or 5 NM separation to be able to issue a clearance, whereas two pilots just have to miss each other) Alternatively, once the VFR traffic is identified, a suggested heading can be given that would create the separation standard, and once the aircraft is seen to be tracking on the suggested heading and 3/5 NM from the conflicting traffic a clearance can be given.
I think that is a really, really dumb idea. It is completely unacceptable to me, with 100+ punters in the back, to not have any say in segregating myself from another aircraft that is so close that ATC can't give them a clearance. To suggest that the "pilots just have to miss each other" is, I hope, a joke. The other guy might be the ace of the base but why should I, on behalf of all my pax, not have a right of veto over some visual sighting manoeuvre that the VFR is going to employ to hopefully pick me up before I clobber him?

As for the Premier jet not calling on the area frequency, in the US there is no VFR requirement for that. I suggest he would have been listening on his other radio, but why load up busy ATC frequencies with VFR aircraft reports? Australia has made a dog's breakfast out of this issue since the ATSB report in 1991 "the limitations of see and avoid"
I was suggesting that the jet-jock called Centre, just make a broadcast. Why is our setup a dog's breakfast? I operate in a pretty simple full-radio environment from start to finish thanks to our rules, complicated only by the small CTAF areas, which increase radio management complexity and therefore decrease safety.

I suggest he would have been listening on his other radio
You raise an interesting point here. I guarantee that a VFR pilot in E would not have a clue about what is going on around him or whether there are any collision threats nearby based on what he hears on the ATC freq. IFRs merely talk to ATC, we don't give position reports, we don't give details on where we're going or what we're doing. This concept of VFR announcing "if in conflict" is, in my view, ludicrous. Lookout is useless for collision avoidance and the ONLY thing that will save the midair is last-line-of-defence TCAS. If however you are under a SIS, then it all changes.
Capn Bloggs is offline