****su_Tonka, you state:
Heres an idea... (not a new one)... unless in a CTAF area, everywhere at or below 5000' use 126.7 (which a lot do anyway) when OCTA/G non-radar.
I find it extraordinary that you appear to be obsessed with “radio arranged” separation when flying enroute. Can I ask what you would use radio for when enroute away from a CTAF area? Giving announcements every three or four minutes so other VFR aircraft can hear you? Or is it to call up when you see another aircraft – i.e: “Aircraft at Barrenjoey, I can see you, I will remain clear.” I’ve heard that one a lot and it is completely useless, but I suppose it makes the pilot feel important.
At the present time, even in our radio obsessed environment, there is not even a radio requirement below 5,000 feet for VFR aircraft away from CTAFs which have radio requirements. Why then would you want everyone using 126.7? Even the Airservices collision risk modelling shows that the only real chance of a collision in Class G airspace is not when enroute, but in the approach, departure or circuit area of a CTAF.
From the sound of it you want VFR aircraft on 126.7 below 5,000 feet – either making announcements or replying to announcements. It is amazing that no other country in the world has such a system.
If you look at the midair collision rate from leading aviation countries, the number of midairs which take place below 5,000 feet and away from aerodromes is miniscule. It is normally only when someone is following a topographical feature like a coastline or a beach. I’m not sure how radio calls would work in that situation – obviously you would need to call every two or three minutes to make it worthwhile, and if every aircraft within VHF range below 5,000 feet was giving radio position reports when below 5,000 feet, the whole system would become so blocked up with calls it would stop working.
Food for thought.
Peuce, you seem to be objecting to what is common practice in the USA. My suggestion is that you talk to a few US controllers. They don’t seem to have a problem in using commonsense for IFR aircraft in Class G airspace. They don’t consider they are “breaking the law.”
A few years back I said on this forum that many US controllers do not know if an aircraft is in Class E or Class G airspace. I was howled down, but it is in fact the truth. I suggest you have a look at a US chart of aircraft going into Lake Havasu airport in Arizona. You will find that in certain directions the IFR aircraft goes through a section of Class G airspace. I discussed this with the Centre controller who didn’t even know that this was so. He or she simply separated IFR traffic on the frequency where practicable.
Controllers in the US and other countries are not obsessed about whether an IFR aircraft is in controlled or outside controlled airspace like Australia. The culture has only come about in Australia because a separate union, with flight service officers, ran the uncontrolled airspace.
This has developed a “belief” that controlled and uncontrolled airspace must keep rules and procedures that were written 50 years ago. This is simply not so. We are a sovereign country – we can write any rule for aircraft in Class E or Class G airspace. We can simply notify a difference with ICAO. The USA proudly claims that it has the highest number of filed differences with ICAO – this is because there are many sensible people in the USA who realise that ICAO is pretty well controlled by third world countries who often want to over-regulate and over-prescribe to employ the maximum number of people.