Uncommon Sense, one of the problems I see with submitting a flight plan in the air in Australia is the ridiculous set up that I understand exists with TAAATS where a full flight plan form appears, taking up a large part of the TAAATS screen. This was the case when it was last demonstrated to me, and I suggested that a program change be made so very basic details could be taken when necessary.
Under the FAA system in the USA, it is possible for the ATC to put in basic details without a large flight plan form appearing on the screen. If I remember correctly, when you ask for flight following the US controller simply comes back with the request for the aircraft type and the destination. This is keyed in simply and quickly in a small “block” on the screen – almost as the pilot is communicating the information.
The FAA has told me a number of times that the reason they do not accept VFR flight plans for the ATC system is that the cost would be too high. The last time I checked it cost about $150 for each VFR flight plan accepted into the system through the briefing office in Australia. Then again, Aussie ATCs wouldn’t care about this.
Spodman, the issue in relation to transponder codes is simple. In the USA you cannot get flight following unless a specific code has been allocated to you. In Australia, we have decided (I think because of no real planning or leadership) to go to a dual system – i.e. in some cases you will be kept on a VFR code and at other times you will be given a specific code. I can assure you that one day there will be a serious incident and someone will decide that it is better to follow the proven system where a specific code is issued so it is quite clear to the air traffic controller, and the pilot, where the responsibility lies.
We have never offered a proper flight following service to VFR aircraft, so why not copy something which is proven and change it in time if we can make it better – rather than invent our own system and then find out the safety problems which may exist.
VVS Laxman, you state that it is quite clear that the flight following and responsibility has been changed when the wording “frequency change approved” has been said, yet in the post immediately above, Spodman states that AIP ENR 8.1.2 states “…remain responsible for the VFR aircraft after the service is terminated …”
This clearly shows that the whole thing is ripe for misunderstanding and therefore serious safety incidents. As I’ve said previously, we are obviously designing a Nomad rather than copying a 747.
VVS Laxman, you are actually letting down your colleagues. With the US system it is totally clear where the responsibility lies. In the Australian system, as you have pointed out, because it is mandatory to be on the ATC frequency it makes it quite clear that at all times VFR aircraft can receive an advisory service from ATC. That is, if their radar paint is close to another aircraft, the pilot should be called by ATC and warned.
That is the specific reason in the USA that they do not show ATC frequency boundaries on charts and use the words “frequency change approved.” It is not by accident that they add the extra words, it is with clear intention. That is, to protect air traffic controllers from being held accountable for an accident when it would not be fair.
It is not that most VFR aircraft request and receive flight following in the USA. The latest estimate from AOPA is that about 10% of VFR aircraft request a flight following service.
When I flew across the USA a few years ago, from Monterey to Republic Field in New York (specifically video taping and monitoring the ATC system), I heard only two requests for flight following in the entire flight over three days – one was rejected, the other accepted. In the East Coast area around Long Island it is almost impossible to obtain flight following as air traffic control is so busy with IFR traffic.
In the USA it is clear that the “workload permitting” part of flight following also includes the workload of keying in the required data. If the controller is too busy, the service is not given as the US NAS system is designed around giving a service to IFR aircraft. That is how it should be.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 16th May 2005 at 23:20.