Kaptin M, my comments in relation to flying enroute VFR in silence is of course only if the pilot avoids the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome. I have always supported that if a pilot flies in the airspace normally used for approach and departure that the pilot should monitor the frequency of that airport – nothing could be more logical.
However I simply cannot see the point of a VFR pilot flying enroute (say, at 3,500’) having to monitor airline aircraft above FL200. On the east coast, where the airline aircraft are within radar coverage, they do not give position reports so the VFR pilot monitors useless information – i.e. no position report means that the VFR aircraft does not know where the airline aircraft is. With the NAS system, the pilot flying enroute when in the approach or departure airspace of an aerodrome monitors that frequency, and gets a good alerted see and avoid procedure.
Blastoid, you seem to be mixed up between radio arranged separation and alerted see and avoid. What you actually describe (i.e. where two aircraft talk to each other in VMC and then arrange separation as if they are in IMC) is not BASI/ATSB alerted see and avoid. Alerted see and avoid is just that – the pilot receives traffic on another aircraft, looks in that direction and avoids the aircraft. BASI/ATSB have never said that alerted see and avoid is not satisfactory and that all pilots must use radio arranged separation when in VMC. The reason for this is because once two aircraft start radio arranging their separation; the frequency is completely blocked for any other traffic announcements. The radio arranged system may have worked in VMC in the 1950s in Australia, but with increasing traffic densities we need to move to a modern airspace system using alerted see and avoid.
By the way, ICAO Class E and G airspace specifically states (under ICAO recommendations) that no radio is required for VFR aircraft. That means that ICAO recognises that the airspace is a “see and avoid” airspace. If see and avoid is not satisfactory, why would ICAO have Class E and G airspace knowing that commercial airline traffic uses this airspace throughout the world? The reason is simple. Due to low collision risk in the Class E and G airspace used overseas, the unalerted see and avoid system is satisfactory to give the required level of safety.
Look at the US airspace diagram again.
There are many Class D airports in the USA (where the Class D goes to 2,500’) with Class E above. Many of these airports have no radar coverage in Class E above the Class D, and even if they do, American controllers consistently tell me that they only provide traffic on a workload permitting basis and at many times they are simply too busy to provide a traffic service for an IFR aircraft descending through Class E into a Class D tower. In the USA there is no radio or transponder requirement for VFR in this “link” airspace.
As
Voices of Reason said on another thread, there is no call from air traffic controllers or pilots to change the Class E airspace in the United States. The reason for this is that they all agree it is a very safe airspace.
Four Seven Eleven, you are an air traffic controller working for Airservices. If you are telling me that 5 years after Class E airspace was introduced to Australia that air traffic controllers have not been provided with the correct documentation, I will have to agree with you. I have previously said that the leadership in Airservices is abysmal, so I would accept that your documentation is faulty.
I have consistently pushed for Airservices to get American experts to explain how Class E airspace works.
I would have thought that plain commonsense would make it clear to an air traffic controller that if two planes were going to get very close together (and if both planes were communicating to the controller) that the controller would give a simple direction to one of the aircraft to help reduce the chance of a collision. I think you are telling me that a controller cannot do this because that is not in the current documentation. It seems like a very strange system to me. I believe many readers would agree.
I have an outrageous idea. Why don’t you contact your management at Airservices and ask them to introduce the US system where controllers are allowed to use commonsense? In situations similar to the Virgin Blue incident north of Brisbane, the controllers could then give one or the other aircraft an instruction, a suggestion or guidance that would keep the aircraft well apart – amazingly logical!
Perhaps you could advise
www.bindook.com of the Airservices answer.