More warries form Ledsled about those dastardly RPT pilots who think they own the skies. Keep it up, son. I find it entertaining.
So now we have yet another deviation from ICAO AND the US NAS; mandatory radio for VFR in E. Ledsled and Dick et al must be seething with rage. Or is this simply another example of not "complying" with anything in particular, but creating rules as we need them to suit our situation? What?! Commonsense? Wash your mouth out, Bloggs!
Ledsled,
I have long since lost count of the hours and days at such as the CASA Operations Procedures Sub-Committee, Airspace 2000, NAS and similar bodies over the last almost 20 years, many years on union tec. committees before that. You should read some of my public papers on the carriage and use of radio. I am happy to say that most of my views are reflected in the 3 June amendments. It didn't just "happen".
And I am happy to say that the rubbish from a previous couple of NAStronauts (one a very, very senior CASA executive) that compulsory radio actually detracted from safety because naughty/slack/incompetent/lazy pilots were lulled into a false sense of security and therefore were not looking out was comprehensively dismissed by CASA in the upcoming 3 June changes.
Further, if you had any hand in what has been in the AIP for the last 10 years regarding carriage and use of radio you should be ashamed of yourself. When people like Frank (and yourself) have to ask about radio requirements or what they mean (eg Reduced VMC), it plainly indicates that the text is inadequate.
But we have never had any positive contribution from you, have we?
Well, for a start, I don't consider you any policymaker, just another person on Prune stating his position, which I have countered with reasons. If you don't consider that "positive" then that's your problem, not mine. I have generally refrained from personal abuse and telling warries, which is more than I can say about most of your posts. Besides, as Dick continually says, nobody would ever pay any attention to what anybody says here because they are anonymous, including you.
Actually, I (and others) have been waiting for just
one positive contribution from you: the CBA and Risk assessment from VFR in E verses C. I guess we still have 7 months until Christmas...
I and the organisations I have been involved with have made significant inputs to the airspace debate and I am quite proud of what has been achieved so far in the face of blantant self-interest and politicking. I will say that in general, the NAStronauts have failed in their mission to turn our efficient airspace system on it's head to suit the selfish Free in GE brigade, only because commonsense has prevailed over that self-interest.
I love it, you criticize me, because I didn't bring your lack of knowledge of radio requirements in E, to your attention sooner. Priceless.
Maybe you think differently to me. I would have pointed out your lack of knowledge as soon as it became apparent. Oh well.
Since I'm a bit slow and you are on top of all this comms stuff, precisely
what is meant by VFR requiring "continuous two way comms" in E, apart from my previously quoted "should maintain a listening watch on the ATC freq and advise when in conflict"? Continuous with who and saying what?